However, in an interview with The Church of England Newspaper in April 2008, Dr Williams backed away from his conclusive views on the morality of homosexual conduct, while statements last week at the Lambeth Conference about “wrong” sexual conduct, have further muddied the waters.
In a 1989 essay The Body’s Grace, Dr Williams wrote that “the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous biblical texts or on a problematical and non-scriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation.”
Asked in April by CEN whether he still held to this view, Dr Williams replied, “What I said about the ambiguity of the scriptural texts would need a lot of qualification. “What we have to say theologically about the nature of sexual identity is still to me unfinished business,” Dr Williams stated.
Asked during a July 21 press conference what he believed would constitute “wrong” sexual behaviour, Dr Williams responded in language that appeared to affirm the moral validity of public same-sex unions or partnerships. What would be “wrong” would be “any relationship which is outside a covenant, public covenant of mutual support, love in the presence of God.” Dr Williams added: “I don’t believe that sex outside marriage is as God purposes it.”
Where there is no vision, the Communion perishes.
*The Anglican Communion “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,†Dr Williams stated.*
Oh that it were true and girded by action, but the results speak for which reality is dominant in the ABC’s “cure” of the communion. Point to one action that “discourages” the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC or the ACCanada.
Wow! He truly doesn’t understand who he is really dealing with. To say this?
That statement is just plain false and shows blatant disregard to the One who REALLY has the RIGHT to declare in HIS name what is official doctrine of HIS church and what are the limits of legitimate practice in HIS church.
This is not about what the Anglican Communion thinks, Rowan! It’s about what JESUS thinks! He made quite clear what He thinks in HIS Word. You don’t even mention Him. We are to worship HIM, our LORD, NOT some “communion” here on earth. Boy, this just reeks of idolatry for me. I’m so glad I left.
1. In a 1989 essay The Body’s Grace, Dr Williams wrote that “the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous biblical texts or on a problematical and non-scriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation.â€
2. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357: Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Someone is mistaken.
As I have stated before, if Dr. Williams were being interviewed for a Rector’s post in my paris, he would never make it with his views. He denies two thousand years of Church teachings and tradition. This is supporting the Churches official stance? You can not have it both ways as the so called leader of a Church, you either believe or not. Which is it Rowan?
One of the strengths of Anglicanism which I have found in the CofE is the depth of teaching and intellectual rigour. On the other hand Jesus’ teaching was pitched at the ordinary man in the vernacular of the time, and the apostles were very ordinary men in education and background by and large, Paul excepted.
Seems to me sometimes we make it all too complicated; the message is quite simple really and when we get all knotted up with it all we go off track.
It is not rocket science.
Williams is a brave man, someone the conservatives are lucky to have. For their sake he takes their view seriously, but doesn’t get the same charity in return.
#4 might be accurate: either homosexuality is disordered or it is not. The impact of scientific thinking about variety, evolution, genetics and culture undermines the human attempt to make what is empirically “normal” divine. We either recognize that empirical thinking has had normative cosequences, altering our concept of “disorder” or we are stuck in a world where the sun revolves around the earth.
Is it a disorder, or not? And where do we get our evidence? Drummie and Mugsie might get their scientific information from scripture: good for them. Some of us go elsewhere.
RE: “We either recognize that empirical thinking has had normative cosequences, altering our concept of “disorder†or we are stuck in a world where the sun revolves around the earth.”
Not really.
RE: ” The impact of scientific thinking about variety, evolution, genetics and culture undermines the human attempt to make what is empirically “normal†divine.”
Not at all.
RE: “Some of us go elsewhere.”
Well, certainly not science.
Is John Wilkins (#7) implying that ‘science’ gives us an objective understanding of the world as it really is?
Very dubious, if so. All scientific research is carried out in a particular social context which determines what questions are asked and what answers are looked for. Modern science has been enormously successful in all kinds of directions – but value-free and neutral (especially on issues of human behaviour)? Hardly.
#7. Where does the evidence come from. It comes from simple statistics, the results of which make it clear that homosexuality is a radical disorder. The bell shaped curve put homosexuality on one far end of the curve, sexlessness, t he absence of all drive, over on the other far end. Heterosexuality is in the top of the bell, and it is this obvious and long established distribution that defines and determines normality. You can deny scripture all you want, but you cannot deny what normality is and how it is determined. Because of this, you cannot deny that homosexuality is radically abnormal. This is really very simple.
All scripture does is assign a value to normality. God is the parent of all that is, and the bell shaped curve is His intent in the experiential world. Is normality a good? Only in a limited sense:Evolution says that it is essential; this is the design of the intelligent designer. Perfectly normal does not exist in any one, but as to sexuality, one standard deviation – a funny word in this context – contains most of us. Science enables us to determine the norm. Scripture gives it a meaning, a value. Do you challenge this?
Larry
#10 the bell curve simply determines what is most common. It doesn’t determine moral righteousness. Otherwise, being a genius would also be a “disorder.” Homosexuality might be rare and thus – not normal, but that does not mean that science demonstrates it is “sinful.”
It may help explain why the early writers thought it was sinful – the original way of defining “sin” was precisely that. But is such a definition correct? I think we’ve learned a lot about the variety among us. what has moved is that sin becomes more about stealing property, harming others, and breaking promises. Are these sins to you, Larry? They can be part of all sorts of relationships.
Otherwise I’m confused by your understanding of scripture and science. There are lower numbers of red haired or left-handed people (and thus they are at the bottom of the bell-curve). If “anormal” is what determines “sin” we’re in for a lot of heartache.
Although perhaps sin itself is pretty normal for most of us….
#9 – that’s pretty relativistic and post-modern. Seems that this computer and lots of good things we take for granted rest upon scientific discoveries.
#7 For their sake he takes their view seriously, but doesn’t get the same charity in return.
After reading the article, I think the ABC has restated the communion’s position and the teaching of scripture and the church, not because he is listening to the conservatives, but because no Instrument has given its assent to change the teaching of scripture, church and official communion position. So any theologian can privately hold positions that are contrary to the teaching of the church but cannot explicitly “guide” the people under his spiritual care to his contrarion position (even if he is the ABC).
While I have read some scientific papers on homosexuality and genetics, I have not found any that unequivocally declared that it is a purely genetic disorder. If you have any such links/recommendations, would you please share?
RE: “#9 – that’s pretty relativistic and post-modern. ”
Not really. It’s actually foundationalist in that it acknowledges that “science” and “rationalism” is a foundational worldview for some just as Christianity is for others.
#13 – I agree that postmodernism can be a “foundational” theology. This is the postmodern condition: science is true for some, Christianity for others. Both views are simply perspectives. Some carry this further: germs didn’t exist until we discovered them. They might be a part of someone’s foundational world-view, but someone who was plopped down here from the 4th century would have to enter the “scientific” worldview to believe they existed.
#12 – I think the notion of “disorder” is an example of a prejudice, but here is one article about recent research:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002282