In response to the recent coverage of the correspondence dated back to 2000, the Archbishop Canterbury has made the following statement:
In the light of recent reports based on private correspondence from eight years ago, I wish to make it plain that, as I have consistently said, I accept Resolution I.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference as stating the position of the worldwide Anglican Communion on issues of sexual ethics and thus as providing the authoritative basis on which I as Archbishop speak on such questions.
That Resolution also recognises the need for continuing study and discussion on the matter. In the past, as a professional theologian, I have made some contributions to such study. But obviously, no individual’s speculations about this have any authority of themselves. Our Anglican Church has never exercised close control over what individual theologians may say. However, like any church, it has the right to declare what may be said in its name as official doctrine and to define the limits of legitimate practice. As Archbishop I understand my responsibility to be to the declared teaching of the church I serve, and thus to discourage any developments that might imply that the position and convictions of the worldwide Communion have changed.
“..providing the authoritative basis on which I as Archbishop speak on such questions.”
No, he doesn’t speak on such questions though he does act to actively include those who not only speak on them but practices them, and ostracises and punishes those who speak against them.
Don
I am a RC, but I feel sorry for my wife a liberal anglican, she beleaves that what he teaches is the the thruth.
I am not sure why this story is “news”, other than its timing. Most of us knew of +++Rowan’s personal views, and many of us continue to hope his personal views will be more closely reconciled to those of the Communion and Church Catholic.
I fear this good man is running out of road. As TEC continues to advance its ideology, he will not only have to affirm Communion teaching but enforce it. I think there are some moves he has left. I hope he uses them.
[i]I fear this good man is running out of road.[/i]
Jesus didn’t suffer hypocritical religious leaders. I read hundreds of comments after the Sharia business. He is hopelessly compromised in the eyes of the guy on the street.
[i]As TEC continues to advance its ideology, he will not only have to affirm Communion teaching but enforce it.[/i]
I would say he probably needs to start with not subverting Communion teaching.
As someone pointed out, this is not Rowan thinking out loud as a theologian. The guy sent these correspondences out on official letterhead when he was archbishop of Wales.
Rowan honors Communion teaching with his lips, but his actions prove his heart is far from it.
I did intend to add to my earlier comment that it does seem like a cheap political stunt that such content of letters was released (or re-released) just now. My problem is that I can’t think of anyone who would do such a thing. Those who would do such a thing wouldn’t seem to have a motive.
Don
Robroy
I agree – there has not been enough weight given to the fact that this was sent on official letterhead from the Archbishop of Wales. Does this mean that he thinks that as ABC he must uphold the teaching of the church, but as primate of Wales (or for that matter Primate of any other part of the communion) he was not so obliged.
And perhaps the biggest hole:
If priests and bishops are suppose to uphold the teachings of the church and the teaching of the church is that
[blockquote]
Faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage; and that homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture.
[/blockquote]
Why in the world is he not [b]affirming the church teaching[/b] by denouncing homosexual clergy. Why is he holding secret Eucharists for homosexual clergy? Why is he not [b]affirming the church teaching[/b] by denouncing those who are teaching that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable to heterosexuality such as Giles Fraser, Colin Coward, Barry Morgan and pretty much the entire American and Canadian clergy?
Give me a break, [strike]company men[/strike] bishops of CoE. This is not affirming the teachings of the church.
One good thing has come out of all this — we are all awake at last. Rowan Williams is a tragic figure — so ill equipped for the task. Although I have grown weary of the bungling, this is the end of a long history of falling away from the gospel — his lucky number came up at a most unfortunate time for him personally. Let us pray for him and for the Church.
There may be only one to whom the people may now appeal. She has been told that the world has changed around her and she has not kept pace. That the current culture is shared by all. One thing I do believe is that she takes her unique duty seriously. Perhaps she needs to be encouraged by the faithful. It was June 1953 when she took this solemn oath:
Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?
Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen: All this I promise to do.
http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html
[blockquote] He has our full and unqualified support in his magnificent leadership both of the Church of England and of the Anglican Communion as we seek to obey God’s call to take the gospel to the whole world. [/blockquote]
He’s got my full support too. Archbishop Rowan Williams seems to be one of the few bishops in the Anglican Communion who, with St. Paul, understands the power that comes in patiently seeking the cross in faith. If only more of our leaders would choose to pursue that cruciform politics so intrinsic to the Kingdom. May God bless him exceedingly in response to the violence he continues to suffer from those engaged in the counter-politics of a fundamentally different kind.
#6
Perhaps you would be more at ease if the letters were sent on plain white letterhead?
#10
The fact that Rowan sent these letters on official letterhead adds to his guilt by adding the weight and authority of the office to the words on the letterhead. It is an example of how Rowan not only theologizes wrongly but also misuses his office to promote his stubborn wrongheadedness. So in a sense, I would be somewhat more at ease if these letters had been on plain white paper. The letterhead compounds the offenses.
#6: I agree – there has not been enough weight given to the fact that this was sent on official letterhead from the Archbishop of Wales. Does this mean that he thinks that as ABC he must uphold the teaching of the church, but as primate of Wales (or for that matter Primate of any other part of the communion) he was not so obliged.
I agree that this is the critical question about the correspondence. When he wrote these letters, he was no longer “just” an Oxford theologian. He was a bishop of the Church, and indeed a primate of the Church, and as a bishop he actively supported the revisionist agenda and acted to subvert the traditional postion. So what changed when he became the Archbishop of Canterbury?
I do not believe that Williams is duplicitous or two-faced. He strikes me as a thoughtful and prayerful man. Nor do I think it impossible for a Christian, even for a bishop, to ask whether the gospel truly prohibits homosexual unions when characterized by mutual love and commitment. But there is a real problem here, especially for a churchman who asserts, as Williams does, catholic convictions. What is the proper Anglican way to propose a change in the inherited moral teaching of the Church?
My guess is that Williams never really understood the problem of “dissent” until he became the Archbishop of Canterbury and became responsible in a significant way for the unity of the Anglican Communion. But every bishop of responsible for the unity of the Church, not just the ABC.
Well put, Fr Kimel.
Request for clarification on a truly minor point. Is the “I” in Resolution I.10 of the 1998 Lambeth conference (which Abp RW claims consistently to accept) a Roman Numeral one or the large-case letter “I”?
Thanks.
#14: It’s the Roman numeral “I”. You can see the entire list of 1998 Lambeth resolutions here.
Thanks Ross (#15).
#8, I brought that possibility up many months ago, and it wasn’t met with much enthusiasm. Of course, if more Bishops simply had respect to their oaths of ordination, the AC wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.
Still, the thought is intriguing. Even an aged monarch can effect change during a time of crises. I am reminded of the time when the future of Davids kingdom was in danger of being torn apart by the rebel faction led by Adonijah. The once mighty warrior-king David, now frail and dying, prompted by the efforts of Nathan the prophet and Queen Bathsheba, rallied himself to perform one last great effort; namely, installing King Solomon as his successor, foiling the rebel plot.
Ultimately, if all else fails, we have the one true ace-in-the-hole suggested by your screen name: “I wait for the LORD, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope.
My soul waiteth for the Lord more than they that watch for the morning: I say, more than they that watch for the morning.
Let Israel hope in the LORD: for with the LORD there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption.
And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.” (Psalm 130:5-8)
“I accept Resolution I.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference as stating the position of the worldwide Anglican Communion on issues of sexual ethics and thus as providing the authoritative basis on which I as Archbishop speak on such questions.”
After Lambeth 2008 this appears still to be the mind of the Anglican Church. I think all need to step back from personal criticism of the guy and accept what he says as well as the stated mind of the Church. This mind did not change in any of the Indaba sessions. That to me is a significant result of Lambeth.
It is significant, but so too is the decision by TEC to ignore L. 1.10 and go on as before.