Tanzania Guardian: Interview with The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams

[T]he issue in the Anglican Church at the moment has nothing to do at all with the place of the Bible.

It is due to the fact that some people in the church, a minority, especially in the United States, have chosen to read the Bible in a new, very controversial way.

Now that is not the way most of the church reads the Bible. The Bible is still important to most of us.

Good to know ABC is aware of this.  I wondered.  I like the way he frames it; it’s true the liberals in ECUSA have not abandoned the Bible - they are just using it as a means to justify their socio-political agenda.

Q:Archbishop, I will ask you a personal question: .... What is your personal position in regard to homosexuality and same sex marriages? Are they sinful or not?

A:I have said what the position of the church is and that`s the position I teach.

Q:And what is that position?

A:That is the position laid out in the resolution of the Lambeth conference in 1998. That is the position that I teach.

Q:But are they sinful or not?

A:That is what we have said. The phrasing of the resolution in 1998 was that homosexual relations were not compatible with scripture. As Archbishop, bishop, priest of the church, that is the teaching which I must keep my allegiance with.

Wow!  What a drag to be stuck having to “keep your allegiance” to something you don’t personally believe in.  Or is he just tempermentally allergic to calling anything a sin??  Great shepherd here.

Catholic Mom -

He is obviously struggling with this and I actually really admire him for his allegiance and his willingness to keep things together according to the wider beliefs - denying his own or placing them secondary.  That is what is being asked of TEC - they’re being asked not to forge ahead with actions based on their view of the Holy Spirit’s “new thing.”  ABC is a good example of how this can be done. I think he is a Great Sheperd in many respects.

“A:The stance of the Anglican Communion is clear: It has never said anything other than that. The ordination of active homosexuals is not acceptable.”

Really?  How’s this going in CoE?  I would also like to see how many diocese in the US can abide by this statement.  So when will the defrokings begin?

Dear This Day,

It’s OK for a leader of the church not to believe the teachings of the church, as long as he has an “allegience” to them?

“But who do YOU say I am?”

“As an Archbishop, bishop, and priest of the church, my allegiance is to Resolution 1457.63 of the Nicean convention.”

Not, I think, going to cut it as an answer.  Please note the interviewer asked this question twice (“what do you personally believe?”) without an answer. 

If my Archbishop, bishop, or priest can not affirm of his own belief the teachings of the Church, then he is in the wrong profession.  Isn’t that what got you into this problem in the first place?

Catholic Mom - I understand your position, but there is no question that within the Anglican Communion there are a variety of beliefs, even among primates.  The answer to your question is:  yes, one of the duties of being a leader in the AC is a willingness to follow certain teachings - those which are based on the beliefs of the vast majority within the communion. There is no corresponding obligation that every primate hold identical beliefs.  That is a fundamental difference between the AC and the RC church and I , for one, am pleased with ABC right now and applaud his commitment and forbearance.

Dear This Day,

yes, one of the duties of being a leader in the AC is a willingness to follow certain teachings - those which are based on the beliefs of the vast majority within the communion.

How vast does the majority have to be?  When it gets up to 51% does it become an official teaching?

I notice the “communique” says that its direction to stop same-sex blessings holds good only until and unless the Communion happens to change its mind on the subject in the future.  How can you ask a gay person to change their lives, give up their partner, and live a celibate life “until and unless” 51% of the Anglican Communion happens to decide at some point in the future that homosexuality is actually OK?  *I* sure as heck wouldn’t change my life on this basis.  And frankly, if Archbishop Rowan is complicit in denying same sex blessings to homosexual people while PERSONALLY believing that homosexuality is NOT a sin, not only is he, in my opinion, a hypocrite, but he is, in fact, doing something quite cruel to gay people.

How vast does the majority have to be?  When it gets up to 51% does it become an official teaching?

Right now the vast majority is much larger than 51% and it is an essential matter of scripture.  Deciding what is “official teaching” is a matter of forming consensus, and the Covenant will ensure that what is taught now will continue to be taught.  Innovations on essential matters of scripture are unacceptable and a good reason to exclude a province from the club.

I notice the “communique” says that its direction to stop same-sex blessings holds good only until and unless the Communion happens to change its mind on the subject in the future.

Actually, that’s not what it says.  It says “unless” a new consensus is formed.  I don’t think the majority of primates envision that happening.  They are, however, not foreclosing the possibility.  It is a rather gracious way of saying - ECUSA is wrong and they need to get in line or get out.

How can you ask a gay person to change their lives, give up their partner, and live a celibate life “until and unless” 51% of the Anglican Communion happens to decide at some point in the future that homosexuality is actually OK?

You’re twisting the words and the meaning of the communique.  And according to the Anglican teaching and belief - a gay person should not have a partner to “give up” in the first place, at least not in a sexual context.  The call is for all sinners to repent of sin and “give up” sinful ways or at least recognize it and try.  The gay issue is in the forefront because ECUSA has tried to change the meaning of the Bible such that sin is no longer sin.  If a province started teaching that extra-marital sex (homo or hetero) is no longer considered a sin, I would hope and expect a Communique to call for repentance as well.

*I* sure as heck wouldn’t change my life on this basis.  And frankly, if Archbishop Rowan is complicit in denying same sex blessings to homosexual people while PERSONALLY believing that homosexuality is NOT a sin, not only is he, in my opinion, a hypocrite, but he is, in fact, doing something quite cruel to gay people.

Don’t then.  It appears that many in ECUSA feel similarly and that is why they are being asked to either make a commitment or walk away.  There is no cruelty here - if one believes extramarital sex is sinful, as I do, calling for repentance is a loving act out of concern.  If one believes that homosexuality sex is not a sin and they are unwilling to forbear, they do not at this time belong in the Anglican church.

Let me see if I understand this: 

1.  Primates don’t all have to believe the same things [they just have to teach them—it’s OK to teach what you don’t believe]

2.  the Covenant will ensure that what is taught now will continue to be taught.

3.  unless” a new consensus is formed

Let me go out on a limb and make a prediction here.  With these three facts in place, you are never going to solve your problems.

Thanks for your input, Catholic Mom.  We can agree, problems will always exist.  You’d probably be more satisfied under a Pope - I would not.

You’re right, Catholic Mom.
Unless the Anglican Communion is based on the Bible and its teachings, and the Bible is taught and upheld by the primates, bishops, and clergy—well, it will “go to h*** in a handbasket.”  It IS hypocritical to believe something that is against Biblical teaching yet say “well, I must teach orthodox beliefs.”  How convincing is that to an unsaved world, a world that needs to hear the plain truth of Scripture and salvation in Jesus Christ?
The Bible’s basic teachings are very plain—and not open to “consensus”.  It’s not majority rule, it’s not pope rule—it’s rule by God. 
Edwin’s wife, Jane

Just reading in 2 Kings- the last stage of Judah’s sin- as bad as it got before the Lord pronounced judgment had foreign religion set up as equivalent with the worship of the Lord, and tapestried houses for religiously sanctioned buggary attached to the Temple walls.  Naaah- just a coincidence!

Seriously:  Add this shame to the innocent blood of millions of young lives since 1973, and billions of our elected government’s tax dollars being sunk into enforcing atheism on its citizens…  I think we all need to find our knees.  Very quickly!

Q:Archbishop, I will ask you a personal question: .... What is your personal position in regard to homosexuality and same sex marriages? Are they sinful or not?

A:I have said what the position of the church is and that`s the position I teach.

Q:And what is that position?

A:That is the position laid out in the resolution of the Lambeth Conference in 1998. That is the position that I teach.

Q:But are they sinful or not?

A:That is what we have said. The phrasing of the resolution in 1998 was that homosexual relations were not compatible with scripture. As Archbishop, bishop, priest of the church, that is the teaching which I must keep my allegiance with.

With all due respect, I see the above as a serious evasion of personal responsibility and statement of core beliefs.  It is a symptom of the sickness that permeates Western culture.  It is not enough for the spiritual leader of a Christian alliance to state that is what he teaches but with his very evasion says that he not what I personally believe.

I think Rowan Williams has been and continues to be a horrible shepherd.  In the hopefulness of the communique, it seems that too many are willing to forget the amount of damage that has been done by RW in his worship of unity.  Even if he motives were 100% pure (and I have serious doubts in that regard) it delivered a lie to the primates in the form of sub-group report.  The fact that the primates did not buy the lie, doesn’t change the fact the we have been given further insight into the lengths that RW is willing to go.

As I have said, I truly hope that the DES Communique will be able to live up to its words.  If things turn out well, I will eat crow with relish; but the events immediately preceding DES and of the primates meeting inself have left such a bad taste in my mouth that will not go away. 

I have come to the conclusion that a Canterbury centered AC is no longer something that I desire, and Rowan Williams is the reason.  Much has to do with the way in which the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen, in the fact that it is a political appointment made by someone whose outlook is drenched in secular humanism.  Given the trend in British law as well as the EU, particularly as it pertains to homosexualist agenda, I see the situation only getting worse.  The likelihood of a godly, orthodox Christian being named as ABC after RW is remote.

Read the entire interview, I found in interesting that the reporter raised the issue of the End Times.

Gayle—
As one who has tried over and over to impress on Our Distinguished Opponents that the major difficulty is with changes in the teaching and doctrine of the church, I have to disagree.  +++Rowan here is answering honestly, while emphasizing that his teaching is in accordance with the Church catholic.  I’m not sure what more one could actually expect without running the risk of mendaciousness and hypocrisy in the church—of which, of course, we have quite enough already.

[Gee, it’s suddenly getting warm in here… Aaagh!  Flames! ]

I understand the remarks in this thread, but do concentrate upon the very clear statement of the Anglican Communion’s position; people in TEC need to hear more about this—to be better informed that the Episcopal Church is indeed outside the mainstream.  NOTICE what Jim Naughton says (fearing the power of this Tanzania interview by ++Rowan):
“I finally tracked down a url for this interview that the Archbishop of Canterbury gave to a Tanzanian newspaper just before he left that country. . . .  If widely circulated, I believe it will significantly handicap Bishop Jefferts Schori in her efforts to persuade our Church to accept the difficult recommendations being urged upon us by the Primates.” So let us make sure that the interview is VERY WELL CIRCULATED!

Maybe I should add a little more to my last comment.  The reason I welcome Naughton’s negative reception of ++Rowan’s Tanzania interview is that he rightly recognizes its straightforward power to inform people of the real mind of the Communion.  It can show our Bishops that the Episcopal “spin” about the Primates’ meaning is bogus—that their meaning is precisely what ++Rowan says here.  Let’s be glad for what he says, not irate at something he doesn’t say.

Craig,

Please accept that we have divergent opinions re Rowan Williams and mine based on methodologies of observation that have stood me in good stead in both business and as a spiritual director.  I have a great deal of education and training in both the secular and sacred world.  I also have the experience of over 20 years as a heretic and apostate during the haydays of the 1960’s and 1970’s.  Try Haight-Asbury, San Francisco, summer of 1967.

I am a stark Federal Conservative/Orthodox who made the difficult choice of leaving a wonderful conservative/orthodox TEC parish because of the heresy, mendacity, hypocrisy and moral terpitude that runs, no gallops through TEC in particular and the Western provinces of the AC.  I have not seen a sufficient change from the status quo to justify a return to that parish which would result in placing myself under the ecclesial authority of both KJS and RW. 

To put it succintly, I believe in all sincerety that RW is operating out of a very personal agenda and if his agenda and what is best for the Kingdom happen to converge then it is a mark of grace and the Holy Spirit.  His behaviour strikes me as typical of other passive-agressives I have seen in various situations, particularly upper management levels.  Like all of us sinners, he is probably quite adept at telling himself the lies of justification for his sinful actions.  And no matter how you or others might dress up his lie, it is still a lie and a sin.  And probably more so since he is so brillant, at least that’s what people tell me.

Our LORD has been so gracious to me in so many ways, and especially in this “crisis”.  Around the time of GenCon06 I discovered Alastair Begg (also a favorite of Matt’s) on one of the local Christian radio stations.  His preaching has been such a blessing and balm over these past months, but he preaches the Word of God plainly and directly, without pulling punches.  I have been refreshed by the directness of the writings of the various GS Primates over the same course of time and have also wondered why the rest of Anglicanism cannot or will not write and speak with such clarity and forerightness.

But I’m finding the experience to be somewhat like detox, like awakening from a hangover of Anglican fudge, whether it is the American or British style.  And it is possibly to be faithful to what made Anglicanism great and still have your yes be yes and your no be no.  The priest at the continuing church we have been attending for the past few months is such.  Plain spoken, biblically literate and doesn’t pull punches, I find it both compelling and refreshing.  “If we were the people we wanted to be, then we wouldn’t need Lent, but we aren’t, so we do.”

For me, this so-called crisis in ECUSA quit being about Gene Robinson a long time ago.  In asking the question, how did this happen, the Lord began to deal with me, making me understand that my first response was to be self-examination and a call to return to a focus on personal holiness.  I came to understand my role in this mess, even though I was not a cradle Espiscolian and the only church I had known was the 1979 BCP, and had always believed in biblical prohibitions regarding same sex activities.  But sin was sin, and it was time to stop glossing over my more socially acceptable sins and start down the difficult road of dying to self.

And if I couldn’t cherry-pick behaviour, then I couldn’t cherry pick scripture either.  I started looking for resources to hear the clear Word of God.  I guess my detox has been to go on a fudge-free diet and what you see as

answering honestly, while emphasizing that his teaching is in accordance with the Church catholic.

  I just see as more Anglican fudge, cooked up by an Oxford don.