Until now the clearest statement of Dr Williams’ liberal views was an essay, The Body’s Grace, published in 1989 in which he argued that the Church’s acceptance of contraception meant it acknowledge the validity of non-procreative sex. This could be taken as a green light for gay sex.
But he provoked criticism from liberals in the Church of England, and the United States in particular, for seeming to backtrack once he became Archbishop of Canterbury.
Liberals have been bitterly disappointed that a man they regarded as chosen to advance their agenda instead abiding by the traditionalist consensus of the majority.
Liberals from the US Episcopal Church, who see the issue as one of justice for an oppressed minority, were particularly distressed at the Lambeth Conference when the Archbishop appeared to blame them for the growing rift in the Church.
His leadership at Lambeth was a success because, while he failed to resolve the differences in the Church, he avoided outright schism. In spite of everything he has done to maintain unity, however, conservatives are still reluctant to trust Dr Williams because of his theological stance.
This is old news.
[i]His leadership at Lambeth was a success because, while he failed to resolve the differences in the Church, he avoided outright schism. [/i]
No — all he did was placate the reappraisers and frustrate the reasserters. It was no success, unless you can call it a Phyrric success.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Well, here we have a failure to understand something fairly basic. A man and a woman can have “sex”. Two women or two (I guess that number seems a little old fashioned!) men can have something vaguely resembling “sex”. The knowledge of biology equals the knowledge of theology. Anyway, the one may not be reproductive and the other never reproductive, and we have the Archbishop of Canterbury saying therefore they are interchangable; there is a “=” placed between them. That is a new and interesting religion with a yuck fctor that is off the charts. And a big archbishop shaped hole waiting to be filled by something. Anglicanism adores a vacuum.
Given his theology, which reflects a collasally unsound judgment, we should not have been surprised at the shape his leadership took.
The natural end of physical heterosexual intercourse is procreation of a new, third human being. The man and woman involved have a relationship with the child that is for all of history unique biologically, spiritually, psychologically, morally, economically, philosophically.
The natural end of other types of physical intercourse is damage, disease, and death to the men or women involved.
These are two completely distinct categories of human behavior.
Relying on the equation of these two categories is folly. Practicing the equation of these two equations is sin. Teaching the equation of these two categories is Orwellian. Coercing the equation of these two categories is evil.
I thought the reply he received was amazingly good.
#2 and #3 Amen. And Amen.
AP+
When I lived in Vermont some 40 years ago the old-timers used to say, “If the cat has kittens in the oven … that don’t make ’em biscuits.”
People, even archbishops, can [i]call[/i] something equivalent all they want. That doesn’t make it so.
Ruth Gledhill, the “glittering Ruth Gledhill” as one Anglo-Catholic blogger recently characterized her, has a whole course syllabus with links to primary sources, this article, other articles, an editorial and some allies posted on her blog today.
It is really rather strange, isn’t it, that the [i]Times’ [/i] religion correspondent would launch such a broadside against the archbishop of Canterbury made up entirely of old news. The really interesting question is why now; why now bring up material that adds absolutely nothing new to what is known of Archbishop Rowan’s views as an academic theologian?
It is all rather unpleasant and one is reminded of other times when there have been thoroughly unpleasant attacks on individuals associated with Church controversy, sometimes with tragic results. Presumably the archbishop of Canterbury is less vulnerable than some others have proven to be when British journalists’ ire was turned on them.
The real issue is not the old news of Rowan Williams the Oxbridge don wrote. [b]The real issue is what is a bishop’s primary responsibility.[/b] Too many Anglican priests and bishops, and probably deacons, youth group leaders, Sunday School teachers and the guy who shovels the walks have misunderstood their ministries and attempted to be cutting edge theologians and prophets overturning what they imagine their parents’ friends believe. The sad stories of the recent bishop of Newark or nearly any bishop of California for several generations illustrate what I mean.
Archbishop Rowan, unlike those mentioned above, is capable of keeping two ideas in mind, and keeping them in perspective as well. He has said, “When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why.â€( Rowan Williams, quoted by a Lambeth Palace spokesperson, [i]Times[/i], August 7, 2008, and taken from an interview in the [i]Church of England Newspaper[/i] of May 8, 2008.) What is remarkable is not that he said this, but that he apparently means what he said. AND that is the problem! What is yet more remarkable is that he holds this to be what bishops promise, vow, to do. And that makes the problem incomprehensible for some.
Liberals are apparently incapable of understanding the plain English quoted by the Lambeth Palace spokesman. Or, at least, they are incapable of understanding that there is something greater than what passes for courage and integrity in their small, smug world. The fact that they attack him over and over as some sort of traitor is just one more IQ test which they have flunked.
I have certainly been guilty of saying or writing wicked and sinful things about people with whom I have disagreed and I regret doing so more and more, but I would regret it, almost as much, if I found I had been goaded into saying those things as part of vendetta against someone. The first is sinful but I am a sinner, and I may be forgiven. The second is stupid and that is permanent.
Father Dean A. Einerson+
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
My thinking was along the same lines as #8.
The Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian are all reporting this story. The Times has the most complete coverage, but neither of the other two stories references the Times. Is it consistent with the ethics of British journalism to report as news something one read in another paper? If not, this correspondence was shopped to all three London papers with a clear purpose of doing the ABC in just after Lambeth. Why?
One clue as to who is behind this may be the fact that Ruth Gledhill has posted a pdf copy of the two +RDW letters, complete with handwritten annotations and typographical corrections, but there is no comparable posting of a pdf copy of the Pitt letters even though Gledhill has them (or at least one) since she quotes from it. Does the Pitt letter give away the source of the leak? Many offices have a stamp that reads “Received†with the date and is stamped on all incoming correspondence. At my office we routinely wrote on the top of a document the names of others we wanted to review it before it was filed. Might something like this be on the Pitt letters? Surely the Archbishop himself can tell at a glance whether the copies of his letters as posted at the Times are his or hers. He would know whether he kept a copy of the signed originals, would recognize his own handwriting and marginal notations if they were his, and would likely remember if he circulated this correspondence to others. There is in any event obvious evidence of clumsy photocopying or faxing on the letters; they look like something that has been passed around.
Would it be inappropriate for the journalists to say whether the leaker was a progressive or traditionalist?
IMO, discovering who is behind this is more interesting than the substance of the letters, which has been known for some time. Who was so upset by Lambeth that they would do this now?
Yes, his thinking is certainly old news. What seems to be new is the two letters being reported and shown in public.
I think it very unclear what motive might lie behind the disclosure of these letters.
Father Dean A Einerson writes,
[blockquote]The real issue is not the old news of Rowan Williams the Oxbridge don wrote. The real issue is what is a bishop’s primary responsibility.[/blockquote]
This was not written when he was “just an Oxford don” [b]but rather when he was Archbishop of Wales.[/b]
Here is how the Independent begins its article: “A last-ditch attempt to undermine the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury was under way last night with the leak of an exchange of letters from eight years ago in which Dr Rowan Williams appears to compare homosexual relationships to marriage.”
Robroy, I am tempted to say, “So What?” But, you know, I really like Walter Scott, love the Jacobites and will probably wind up like the non-jurors before this mess is all over and so I really do not want to argue with anyone calling himself robroy about this any more.
Besides, it’s too late here in Wisconsin; the Transfiguration was beautifully celebrated hefre with people at each of the Daily Offices since last night, and six people at mass on the Eve and eleven this morning. The garbarge in the British press has not spoiled any of that and I do not want to risk spoiling it by getting in an argument with people who I respect on this thread or the other. Sorry if I’ve been offensive.
Father Dean+
My initial reaction is in agreement with #8 & #9. The pdfs of the letters are here
Clearly I’m naive; it didn’t occur to me until I read the comments here that this might be considered an “attack” on the ABC.
Who, precisely, are the hypothetical attackers attempting to discredit Rowan to? If, as I’ve seen asserted on this site, England is broadly secular and the secular culture is disposed to be tolerant towards homosexuality, then this would seem only likely to boost his position to the public at large. Anglican reasserters who’ve been paying the slightest bit of attention already know his private views on the matter, as well as his conviction that as a church leader he has to stand by the teaching of the church. Anglican reappraisers also know this, and we might be a bit miffed that he’s not more visibly “on our side,” but again — old news.
So who is someone expecting to be outraged?
As to the source of the leak, I would suggest this comment at the bottom of Ruth Gledhill’s ‘blog stongly hints that it is Dr Pitt herself:
[blockquote](Note: Dr Pitt was an Anglican at the time of this correspondence but has since left the Church in Wales and is now a member of an evangelical free church.)[/blockquote]
Father Dean writes, “Robroy, I am tempted to say, “So What?â€
But your main point of contention was that for Rowan, “When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why.†Should that not apply to Archbishops of Wales and not just Archbishops of Canterbury???
My point is that this is not an example of “when I became a man, I put away childish things.” Rather, he honors the teachings of the Church only with his lips but subverts them with his actions.
#17: robroy, here is why I was tempted to say “So What?â€
Wales or Canterbury or, for that matter, Monmouth, Williams was engaged in a private correspondence describing the process by which he came to a set of conclusions. That is not the same as publishing his personal opinions as the authoritative teaching of the Church.
If you read the statements of the American liberal bishops who are distancing themselves from the Lambeth Reflections, they are, in effect, claiming to be authoritative teachers and fathers in God for their dioceses as they announce their intention to continue the sacrilegious parodies of marriage liturgies. They are posing as pastors to the people of their portions of the Church when they announce that the Reflections will not be misunderstood as binding on them in any way. They are clearly acting and speaking as bishops. That is quite different what Williams is doing in these letters.
I certainly applaud a man who is able to discipline himself to fall in with the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship even if personal passions might tempt him to act the prophet or the professor.
In Christ,
Father Dean A. Einerson+
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
“When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches.”
This does not hold much water coming from someone who was a leader in promoting women’s ordination, which even its proponents claimed was a ‘holy experiment’. Bishops should not be experimenting with the sacraments they are charged with assuring.
Ruth Gledhill posted the following comment on [url=http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/003361.html#comments]Thinking Anglicans[/url] in response to a comment suggesting Chris Sugden gave her these letters:
[blockquote]Chris Sugden had nothing at all to do with these letters. They were posted to me on the day Lambeth began. I did not do the stories then because I was not in the office to open my letters, being in Canterbury. I returned to work on Tuesday, and by 5pm when I got to the bottom of my huge pile of post I found the letters. There was no space in Wednesday’s paper so we ran them today. I wonder myself if the Holy Spirit was at work on Rowan’s behalf, in ensuring this story did not come out during Lambeth itself….
Posted by: Ruth Gledhill on Thursday, 7 August 2008 at 4:40pm BST
[/blockquote]
Father Dean #18: Actually that makes sense and I see from where you are coming. Saying that, I would prefer church leaders that actually believe the teachings of the church.
robroy, I absolutely agree.
In Christ,
DAE+