B L O G P A S T O R

Kenny,

Perhaps we should consider the ministry to homosexuals and how so many have felt rejected by the Church.

Williams may be wrong, but I reckon he errs on the side of compassion not - unfortunately - a ’side’ that many Christian theologians lean towards. In general, we prefer to proclaim and uphold a certain (usually traditional) view of ‘the truth’, w/out much regard for:

- the impact on people we’re talking about (we worship a God of Love, but often the WAY we communicate gives people an impression of the opposite)

- the possible ambiguity involved in a given issue (how much time have we spent studying a certain topic to be *so absolutely sure* that there’s only ONE way to look at it? is there a place for epistemic humility in our theology?)

- the thought that maybe sometimes it’s better not to say something

Hey Kenny,

I’d agree with Alwyn here. I was a bit surprised to read what you wrote in this entry after having read some of your previous posts about other church leaders who are less than perfect yet you chose to see the positive side of their lives and ministry.

I understand how divisive this issue can be so I’m not going to write much here. But I am embarrassed and disappointed by the way a lot of conservative Christians react to the homosexual issue. I don’t have all the answers and my view probably leans more towards disagreement with what Dr. Williams wrote above. I’m more conservative theologically on this issue. But I also disagree tremendously with the approach taken by most conservative Christians on this issue - and perhaps also the abortion one. Some Singaporean churches and leaders have stood strongly on this issue in the past few years and I’d disagree with their approach.

I think the challenge is to stand for what you view is they truth, yet do it with humility and through it all always demonstrating love so that even those who disagree with you would be impressed by your demonstration of love.

Yes we conservative Christians have not been so wise and kind in the way we deal with the issue of homosexuality recently. Christ would not have been so strident or insecure.

I take issue more with how the truth of God’s Word, so plain to me and others, could be interpreted so differently by a theologian and head of a denomination, and that after twenty years of study and prayer on the subject.

I am still flabberghasted!

In fact, Kenny, if we can accept the fact that ‘Christians have not been so wise and kind’ and if we can further recognise that there is a *connection* between the state of our hearts and the way we theologise, it’s perhaps UN-surprising (though unfortunate) that theology on this issue (as with most issues) is rarely creative.

Until a Luther or Jesus or Paul comes along, earn the wrath of everyone, get themselves persecuted (or cursed) and things change (slowly? radically?). ;>)

hmmm, i actually see this more broadly as a governance issue, in particular, on how the anglican community ensures that the authoritative framework in which it dispenses its truths remains robust, even as it strives to leave behind dogma and to take an open stance in embracing ever changing culture… a tricky balance.

it’s quite sad really to see what’s happening to anglicanism in the US and UK.

Rowan Williams is a neo liberal. He believes in the Bible as God’s word but does not believe in the Bible’s FINAL authority on matters of practice and belief. Hence his tendency to major on nuances and hesitation to err on the side of inherited biblical truth in the face of controversial matters.

Also the English variation of the anglican church is in deep crisis because of its established ecclesiastical links to the nation as a state church. The English parliament passed a law recently which approved of civil relationships between gays. The English house of Bishops released a document which allowed homosexual clergy to formalize their relationships with their lovers in these state sanctioned civil relationsips. They were told to inform their bishops and to abstain from having sex! This is the sort of system which would automatically veer toward choosing men of Rowan Williams ilk. Men of Williams “calibre” have learned the art of using biblical language to say and believe contradictory positions at the same time because their final authority is derived from a logic which maintains the system they’ve inherited.

The Roman Catholic church in its official stance has declared homosexuality as disordered and incompatible to both scriptures and church tradition.

In Bolivia, where the Roman Church is the official religion, homosexuality however is not banned nor is sodomy illegal. Although the Roman church has a formal relationship with the state, it is unable to influence the state legislatures from following their lead in the area of homosexuality. And this is true in the whole of Latin America.

Its different when divorce and other issues are brought into the picture. Both Chile and Paraguay do not have legal provisions for divorce because of the Roman teaching concerning divorce. Secularism however has made huge inroads in Latin America and many countries, in varying degrees have moved on and taken on a secular face. Bolivia, unlilke Chile and Paraguay, for instance allows divorce. The death penalty is unpopular in Latin America and this is largely due to the Roman perspective of the sanctity of life (the same reasoning props up the legal statute which prohibits abortion).

The link below takes you to a piece I did on discipline and the anglican communion. Rowan Williams features heavily in this post

http://bolivianbeat.blogspot.com/2008/07/can-anglican-communion-discipline.html

On one side we have the ‘created order’; after that, we have this
thing called ‘the Fall’; and right after that, we have ‘the gospel’;
and, finally, on the other side, we have ‘the re-creation’.

You might already realize that all these sides are part of the truth.

Williams as a theologian has the responsibility to struggle this issue
of homosexuality through ALL sides. If he can’t even do that, then
it’s better for him to just labor as an usher or a candle holder in a
local parish. Just follow and without the trouble of needing to lead.

Being a leader of a tragic community known as ‘the church’, he not
only has to struggle the problem but to embrace the the seriousness of
it without trivializing it.

Williams is trying hard to take the issue right through ALL these
sides; all the constituent parts of the Truth.

Usually a dissenter will only view the issue at the ‘created
order’ and period. He/she doesn’t want to go further. And they say that is the Truth. Equating part of the Truth as the entire Truth is of course nonsense.

Williams on the other hand is trying to grapple the issue in light of
the ‘created order, ‘the fall’, ‘the gospel’, and the ‘re-creation’;
asking questions that few dare to ask; embracing the struggles which
few even care to deem as serious in the first place.

Perhaps Mike Higton’s series of exposition of Williams’ theology is a
starting point to understand why this archbishop- who is obviously not
an idiot- chose to make a stand that he made.

And all these doesn’t mean that I agree with Williams entirely.

Mike Higton’s site: http://goringe.net/theology/?p=192

Yes, Rowan Williams can struggle with the issues as a professor of theology in a seminary. He can also look at issues from every conceivable angle but please do it within the confines of a seminary classroom.

A Bishop in the Anglican church is a defender of the Faith. People have died for this Faith. And that requires the Bishop to be responsible to the flock. He does not have the luxury of speculating with the truth nor seeing every angle of the issue while he holds the office. A Bishop takes a number of vows during his consecration where he is given the charge of the flock. He must guard the boundaries and discipline those who are errant in doctrine. This is one reason why some men with a liberal conscience have refused to take on the office of a Bishop.

Rowan however is playing a strange game. He takes the church’s biblical position without jettisoning his own personal beliefs which contradict the church’s official position. Frankly he does not come across as a person of integrity. And those who look for theological clarity end up being confused.

I hope I am wrong and that he will finally come through for us. Till then I remain in prayer for him.

Actually, I would like to invite him to my church’s sunday school.
He can perhaps start from Basic Bible Truth 123 again..

But of course, we need to use simple english.

Ha..ha..

Hi Kenny,

Williams living in St. Paul’s 1st century is a good starting point for ponderance.

On the other hand, how about St. Paul living in Williams’ 21st post-crusade, post-slavery, post-patriarchal, post-Christian century England, which is also aware of gender complexity (such as homosexual, transexual, hermaphrodite etc), and possess gender enhancement surgical and medical technology.

I think St. Paul would first tear out his hair for knowing that his writings were being used to justify massacre, discriminate and ill-treat women and non-heterosexuals, advocate slavery etc.

And after that, he might calmed down to pray. Then perhaps, he might look to Williams and join him to struggle these issues together, without knowing where it will eventually lead to, just as he didn’t know his writings had led to all those mentioned above.

Just an extended wonder based on your early one

does being homosexual mean that you will eventually end up in hell? (if you choose not to repent?) why should i believe in a god that discriminates against what is true to me?

Dear Joshua,

You are right about the false division between church and academy. Bishops should be serious students of what is happening around them and should learn to investigate an issue from many angles. This investigation however is not made in a vacuum but within a clear objective reference point i.e. inherited biblical faith. The early fathers of the church knew how to redeem pagan ideas and incorporate them into the christian faith. The use of the term logos in John 1 is a case in point.

I also agree that the church should not blindly use traditional biblical faith in its engagement with what the Holy Spirit is doing now. We have a theological category called “reception” where traditional biblical faith discerns and recieves what the Spirit is saying “here and now”. The discernment and reception however between inherited biblical faith and the “here and now” is unequal. Inherited biblical faith stands over the innovation, in this case the gay hermeneutic. And proponents of the gay hermenuetic need to make a strong case. In the case of slavery, the case was made and some churches which used scripture to justify slavery were forced to change.

The proponents of gay hermeneutic need to do more than to accuse its opponents of homophobia and ignorance. Some of their biblical work is interesting but not convincing. There are those who claim to have been healed from homosexuality. How does one distinguish between an authentic gay person and a not so very authentic gay person who claims to have been delivered from homosexuality? I am still waiting for an answer (and yes I am sincere about wanting to know).

This is an important issue and the church needs to show some maturity and discernment in this area. Gays in Singapore will have a higher profile and it is a matter of time before they are given full recognition together with the right to adopt and even live within a civil union. The Lord grant us grace to be wise and truthful.

Dear Bolivian,

We resonate much with one another in our understanding of church and the academy and ‘gay hermeneutic’. Hence no qualm that we can say ‘amen amen’ on these.

My comments here are all directed to the misunderstanding of Williams, his theology, and his leadership in managing the communion.

And the quotation in Kenny’s post is dated about 8-9 years ago, before Williams was appointed as the archbishop of Canterbury.

Due to the recent Lambeth Conference, that article has been flimsily misrepresented in the media, such as reported in telegraph with the title “Rowan Williams: gay relationship comparable to marriage” (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4473814.ece)

And fellow bishops had repudiate the telegraph for such misrepresentation here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4487712.ece

“…Dr Williams did not say ‘gay sex is good as marriage’ (your front-page headline) or ‘equivalent to marriage’ (your inside headline). In his first letter, he concluded that a same-sex relationship ‘might . . . reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage’. This proposal (whether or not one agrees with it, as many of us do not) is far more cautious in content, and tentative in tone, than is implied by both the articles and the headlines. In the second letter, Dr Williams stresses that same-sex relationships are not the same as marriage, ‘because marriage has other dimensions to do with children and society’.”

Thus to imply that Williams as “savage wolves” is too hasty as a conclusion and too easy as a suggestion.

I’m merely asking us to halt our horses and to really listen to Rowan Williams in this time of confusion instead to just slamming him with “thus saith the Bible…” period.

Hi Kenny,

we resonate with one another on many points. Hence nothing to comment besides ‘amen amen’.

Nonetheless, my comments in response to this quotation that Kenny used in his post. It is a 8-9 years old article which Williams had written before he became the archbishop of Canterbury.

It is due to recent Lambeth Conference that the media is making a big hoo-haa with the article. For eg. the Telegraph has the title “Rowan Williams: gay relationship comparable to marriage”. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4473814.ece)

But that’s not what Williams had written. Since the publication of Telegraph’s piece, fellow bishops had clarify and defend Williams against such misrepresentation here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4487712.ece

“…Dr Williams did not say ‘gay sex is good as marriage’ (your front-page headline) or ‘equivalent to marriage’ (your inside headline). In his first letter, he concluded that a same-sex relationship ‘might . . . reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage’. This proposal (whether or not one agrees with it, as many of us do not) is far more cautious in content, and tentative in tone, than is implied by both the articles and the headlines. In the second letter, Dr Williams stresses that same-sex relationships are not the same as marriage, ‘because marriage has other dimensions to do with children and society’.”

Hence, to imply that Williams as a savage wolf out to kill the flock is too hasty as a conclusion and too easy as a suggestion.

I think we ought to halt our horses and learn to listen to Rowan Williams, his theology, and his leadership for his communion especially in crucial and confusing time such as now.

Dear Joshua,

I hear what you are saying and have enjoyed dialoging with you.

My disappointment with Rowan does not entirely rest with the letters that were leaked. The ones responsible for this leak were out to embarass him. I think there are other ways to deal with our differences and leaking private letters to the press may not be the most christian way to manage our differences.

My disappointment rests on his unwillingness to work through the Dromantine and Dar Es Salaam accords. These were decisions by by the Primates of the communion to bring into account the behavior of the Americal Episcopal Church. Rowan unfortunately dropped the ball and his follow up actions only served to undermine these accords.

Also there are issues in relation to the organizing centre of worldwide anglican communion. There are many who want the Global South to have a say in how the communion runs itself. At present it is run by a small group of western bishops who do not represent the full voice of the church. The British and American bishops tend to hog the limelight with their articulations and their agenda. Rowan stage managed the Lambeth conference in such a way which only promoted one stream of the church to be heard. The speakers at the Lambeth conference were entirely from the west and reflected the views of the liberal moderate persuasion of the church. This group is small and only represent a minute fraction of the anglican church. The voice of the large evangelical bible believing majority were muted in the plenary sessions.

Hi Bolivian,

I enjoyed having this conversation with you too.

I’m not disappointed with Williams. Confused, yes; Curious, yes; Bewildered, yes; Disappointed? No.

What do we expect him to do on the practical side? His position includes the following condition, which he knows very well:

1) about 80 millions members in the communion.

2) Archbishop of Cantebury is not the pope of the communion. Merely the first among equal.

3) Anglican communion’s identity is not governed by a Magisterium like to the Roman Catholic.

4) The starting point of the Anglican communion’s identity as we know it today is rooted in the divorce from the ‘right teaching’ of the Roman Church due to the king’s infidelity.

5) Knowing the homophobic tendencies by other archbishops and bishops (for eg. as exemplified by Akinola and the south african bishops’ negligence to condemn the astrocities done on homosexuals in their contries: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/23/anglicanism.gayrights).

What would we do to in such situation? Deconsecrate the gay bishop? Deconsecrate the entire episcopal church?

Williams know that this is not the way his authority should be used or manipulated. Hence the best he can do is to keep the unity of the communion as long as he can, or at least as long as he believes he ought to.

And besides, those who disagree with Williams can of course feel free to break away from the communion on the other hand, just as Martin Luther has done. Why should the expelling of the allegedly wronged side be the only way in this issue?

These are the many questions that cannot be answered here and now. Not on a blog comment column. Not this part of heaven.

Dear Joshua,

I have responded with comments of my own. They aer placed under your points.

1) about 80 millions members in the communion.

- Actually there are only 70 million anglicans. 80 million has been bandied about in some blogs. It sounds inflated. I must check and confirm this figure.

2) Archbishop of Cantebury is not the pope of the communion. Merely the first among equal.

- He is still first among equals. His office enormous weight. He issues invitiations for the 10 yearly Lambeth conference. He also convokes the Primates of the Worldwide Anglican Communion. He has a degree leverage. Sadly, he has not used it to do the necessary follow up from previous accords which clearly spelt out discipline for the American Episcopalian Church.

3) Anglican communion’s identity is not governed by a Magisterium like to the Roman Catholic.

- Yes we dont have a magisterium but we have something clearer: its called the Bible!

Competing interpretations of the Bible are not the norm of a church which confesses to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolick church. Allowing competing interpretations in a learning context below the duty to uphold God’s revelation in the Bible sounds healthy

ALL clergy, especially bishops are entrusted with the duty to defend the faith. The reformation in the 16th century reminded all of us of the clearly delineated the boundaries of the Early Church Fathers. Western liberalism has ripped apart these boundaries and sold the false idea of how the anglican church has no mechanism to discipline itself in the international arena. This is a description of current reality but it is not theologically true because biblical revelation is universal and Bishops are asked to uphold truths wherever they are. Marriage is between man and woman. That is a truth in both America and China. A Bishop in China and England should have not problem in deciding that this is a biblical injunction which is for all regardless of culture or contex. A Bishop worth his salt would have no problems in putting together punitive measures in response to actions which were not part of the historic and universal Biblical faith handed to us by the Apostles. And this is exactly what the Primates of the Anglican church were doing.

The Primates functioned as a magesterial body which spelt out the consequences of the American churches’ action of consecrating a practicing gay as Bishop. The person who hesitated to implement these consequences was the ABC. He has reduced Biiblical revelation to only a thesis which needs to be confronted with the anti thesis of the gay hermenuetic with the hope of a higher synthesis to emerge. Biblical revelation cannot be used in this manner. I do not claim to be clever or holier than the ABC. I respect him and I share some of his other views.

Also, an authoritative magisterium does not guarantee clear orthodoxy. The Roman Catholic Magisterium has not prevented the RC Church from aquiring accretions which are foreign to biblical revelation.

4) The starting point of the Anglican communion’s identity as we know it today is rooted in the divorce from the ‘right teaching’ of the Roman Church due to the king’s infidelity.

- No it is not. Henry V111 used the reformation to advance his own political ends and died a Roman Catholic. The Anglican Church traces its roots from the 3rd Century. There is evidence of a British Church, free from Roman influence before the 5th century.

5) Knowing the homophobic tendencies by other archbishops and bishops (for eg. as exemplified by Akinola and the south african bishops’ negligence to condemn the astrocities done on homosexuals in their contries: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/23/anglicanism.gayrights).

- One man’s homophobia is another’s attempt at defending the faith and the integrity of a biblical based christian ethic.

What would we do to in such situation? Deconsecrate the gay bishop? Deconsecrate the entire episcopal church?

- A process to discipline the American Church was put in place. At one point the Episcopal was asked to leave all the institutions connected to the worldwide anglican communion. One normally deconsecrates church buildings if they fall out of use. One cannot desconsecrate the church, God’s people. The gay bishop was asked to resign from his post by the Primate of Sudan as a solution to the crisis.

Williams know that this is not the way his authority should be used or manipulated. Hence the best he can do is to keep the unity of the communion as long as he can, or at least as long as he believes he ought to.

- Unity is not the ultimate truth…Biblical revelation is. And word based authority when used properly does divide and discipline.

And besides, those who disagree with Williams can of course feel free to break away from the communion on the other hand, just as Martin Luther has done. Why should the expelling of the allegedly wronged side be the only way in this issue?

- We are not asking for anyone to be expelled. We are asking for a clear statement from the American church to stop blessing same sex unions and the consecration of gay bishops. THEY HAVE NOT DONE THIS IN A CLEAR UNMISTAKEABLE FASHION!!. Discipline covers a wide range: from non- association to a withdrawal of priviledges in the worldwide anglican communion.

These are the many questions that cannot be answered here and now. Not on a blog comment column. Not this part of heaven.

You are right. We should be humble and not be quick to judge. Its different however when one is an ordained minister of his church. We are ordained to be responsible to the flock and to the Lord. One day the ordained ministers of the church will stand before the Lod’s throne. He will hold us accountable to our actions and beliefs during this episode. And believe me, He is not expecting politically correct answers which pleased the various constituencies of the church!!

Good responses, Bolivia!

Many amen-able points yet many disagreeable ones, yet it is true that God hold us accountable. On those disagreeable ones, we will need a more accessible channel to discuss further. Meanwhile, let God be true, and every man a liar. (Rom 3.4)

Blessings.

I find that the response of this website is pretty good:
http://theparson.net/gays.html

it approaches the issue sensibly without compromising on its stand. yet it reminds us that we have to be humble and that our heterosexual love that we deem to be “normal” is in itself not perfect, that we are all sinners, and that only God’s love is perfect. That the church should not unconditionally approve, but indeed should welcome all people IRREGARDLESS.

Dear Journeyman,

You are on to something!

I dont believe that the Worldwide Anglican Communion can be fine-tuned or even led through the office of the Archbisop of Canterbury. The man being a Brit, will always have to contend with 18th century liberalism and cannot but help to look at the communion thru the lens of his own efforts at trying to maintain an equilibrium with the various constituencies/factions in the Church of England. This is like carring tea cups on your legs, nose and head as one rides a bicycle on a tightrope in a circus. This is a kind of Britiish homogeny at work. It will not do in the 21st century. The worldwide anglicancommunion has taken on a shape and form whiich requires a more global and collegial leadershhip.

Homogeny and diversity, feed on each other and have always existed within the Anglican Communion. In fact I remain an anglican because of this special characteristic. A fundamentalist straightjacket is not our style. We have always been an inclusive church and have never feared creative theological thinking. The Bible is revered but never worshipped. The large majority who believe that the consecration of a gay bishop was wrong are NOT, (contrary to what is portrayed) homophobic, ignorant, narrow minded and my-way-or-the-highway-sort-of-people. Yes there are folk like this in the communion. But they are not the majority.

The vast majority of anglicans want the American, Canadian and yes even the English church to know that there are consequences to actions which contravene the basic articles of faith. Bad mortgages and the sub prime mess were, amongst other reasons, the result of loose and sloppy banking practices. Sooner of later bad practices result in negative consequences. In this sense the analogy does fit with what is going on in the Anglican Communion!

Hi BB,

Great to be having another interesting dialogue with you and the others.

In the business world we recycle assets by liquidating and marking to market to sell to highest bidder, returning the proceeds of the sale to stakeholders in order of their participation in the profit feeding chain. Witness Bear Stearns liquidation (some helpful puch from the Fed and Treasury).

Maybe we should do the same for Churches that can no longer fulfill their original purpose in providing a sanctuary and safe haven to the dispossed and hopeless.

Wonder what the Anglican church would be worth when liquidated……all those unproductive building assets in prime location…….maybe a new type of business opportuntity seeing the “church” itself is becoming more business-like everyday.

Dear Journeyman,

Ha ha! Like I said, you are on to something with your analogies! The guardians of the institutions however will be aghast at your suggestions.