ABP OF CANTERBURY SPEAKS OUT ON MARRIAGE AND SEXUALITY ITEM ONE: New Archbishop Of Canterbury Affirms Traditional Marriage Oct. 14, 2002 TO CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS LONDON, Oct 14, 02 (CWNews.com) - The incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the Church of England, has rounded on his evangelical critics by insisting that he does believe in the Bible and accepts traditional church teaching on homosexuality and sex outside marriage. Speaking over the weekend during a conference in his home diocese of Monmouth, south Wales, Archbishop Williams said: "I have always been committed to the church's traditional teaching on adultery and sex before marriage. It seems obvious to me that if we are to show God's costly commitment in all areas of our lives, this applies as much here as elsewhere." He continued, "We may want to be compassionate and realistic with people coming from a setting where these ideals are remote or completely unintelligible, but the last thing I'd want to do is to weaken the challenge and excitement of the traditional view that says we can and should demonstrate God's faithfulness in our bodily lives, and that this is the meaning of Christian marriage." ITEM TWO: a man of breadth and vision, capable of lifting the Church out of its timid introspection BBC NEWS UK Thursday, 20 June, 2002, 07:54 GMT 08:54 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2048249.stm By Alex Kirby BBC News Online correspondent In choosing the Most Reverend Rowan Williams as the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church of England may be in for a lively ride. Dr Williams, who published his first book at the age of 29, was only seven years older when he was appointed professor of divinity at Oxford - the university's youngest professor. He is the first Welshman - indeed he is a fluent Welsh speaker - to be selected for the Church of England's top job for at least 1,000 years. Dr Williams is an outstanding theologian, a discipline the Church has increasingly neglected. One observer says Dr Williams' address to the 1998 Lambeth Conference, the meeting staged each decade of all the worldwide Anglican church's bishops, "was seen as the most erudite, though the least understood". The archbishop is regarded as a liberal, even a radical. He is sympathetic to the proposal that the Church of England should lose its established status, and become a church on an equal footing with the Catholics, the free churches and all the other Christian denominations. This is not a view likely to endear him to traditionalists. Dr Williams also refuses to stigmatise lesbian and gay clergy in the way some of his fellow Anglican bishops have done. Raising hackles He has acknowledged knowingly ordaining a practising gay priest, something which raises Anglican hackles as few other issues do. The archbishop has also criticised Western policy since 11 September, describing the military action in Afghanistan as "morally tainted", and the bombing campaign as morally equivalent to the terrorism it sought to defeat. Dr Williams has some heavyweight support, notably the endorsement of the former archbishop of Cape Town, Desmond Tutu. Reverend Tutu said his Welsh colleague "towered head and shoulders" above all the other candidates, and had an incredible capacity to communicate, as well as a deep spirituality. Rowan Williams is seen as a man of breadth and vision, capable of lifting the Church out of its timid introspection and enabling it again to play a useful part in national life. Whether he can do so depends above all on two things - the Church's ability to forget its hang-ups over sex, and the establishment's willingness to trust somebody prepared to challenge it. ITEM THREE: Archbishop of Canterbury Argues A Case For Same-Sex Relationships EWTN ^ | November 25, 2002 LONDON, Nov 25, 02 (CWNews.com) - The new Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, says there is a case for "acknowledging faithful same-sex relationships." In a BBC documentary, "An Archbishop Like This," to be broadcast next Sunday, Archbishop Williams says the Bible doesn't forbid all homosexual activity. He says, "If the Bible is very clear-- as I think it is-- that a heterosexual indulging in homosexual activity for the sake of variety and gratification is not following the will of God, does that automatically say that that is the only sort of homosexual activity there could ever be?" He continues, "What about those people who-- with prayer and thought and seriousness and adulthood-- say 'I've never known anything different'? What are we to say to them?" The Archbishop said he didn't want to talk about gay marriage as that "isn't appropriate language" but he said he could "see a case for acknowledging faithful same-sex relationships." The archbishop's comments have angered conservative evangelicals who have recently challenged him to recant his liberal views or resign. <SNIP> ITEM FOUR: Archbishop says, “make marriage an election issue” January 4, 2005 Telegraph Co. U.K. By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent (Filed: 01/04/2005) The Archbishop of Canterbury put marriage at the heart of the election yesterday, saying that support for family stability was not a matter of middle class, Middle England nostalgia but of "life and death". In an open letter to the party leaders, Dr Rowan Williams said that family breakdown had contributed to a generation of "rootless and alienated" youths which was fuelling crime. "The climate of chronic family instability, sexual chaos and exploitation, drug abuse and educational disadvantage is a lethal cocktail," he said. Dr Williams challenged the parties to address such issues during the election campaign rather than trying to win votes by exploiting people's fears about what their rivals might do. Setting out his political priorities, he called on all parties to tackle the failures of the prison system, poverty in the third world and the degradation of the environment. His intervention follows a similar letter from the Roman Catholic bishops last month and will reignite the debate about the role of religion in politics. It could rattle Tony Blair, who has faced criticism from Church leaders for his reluctance to promote marriage because of fears of a backlash from single mothers and cohabiting couples. Dr Williams, who has described himself as a "hairy Lefty", was Mr Blair's choice for the Canterbury post but he has clashed repeatedly with the Government, most notably over the Iraq war. He said that election campaigns could easily degenerate into a competition between the parties about who could most effectively frighten the voters. The "familiar anxieties" over terrorism, asylum, immigration and crime already looked likely to feature prominently in the campaign. He said that, by simply proposing "reactive, damage-limiting solutions" to such problems, politicians could put at risk "deeper interests, rights and needs" of individuals and communities. There were, however, "things that really should make us tremble". Crime, for example, was linked to the growing number of "severely emotionally undernourished and culturally alienated" young people. The collapse of the traditional family, sexual promiscuity, drug addiction and poor educational opportunities were contributory factors. ITEM FIVE: (He who was hailed as a man of breadth and vision, capable of lifting the Church out of its timid introspection says in this interview "I don't think I want to go into that” when asked about the communion wide controversy. Arguably, every day that passes without clear and decisive leadership is costing the communion both respect and membership.) Archbishop of Canterbury breaks silence on same-sex marriage Date June 20, 2004 By Ivan H. Golden Staff Writer June 19, 2004 GREENWICH, Connecticut -- In his first public comments on the same-sex marriage controversy that has divided the Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams expressed solidarity last night with the American Episcopal Church. But he stopped short of taking sides in the divisive issue. "I'm well aware of the crossroads at which we stand," Williams said to an audience of more than 400 people during a fund-raiser at the Hyatt Regency Greenwich. Williams said he wanted to make two points about the controversy: First, he said, "the present difficulties would feel a lot more difficult were it not for the immense love and generosity shown to me by (the American Episcopal Church)." Second, Williams said his experience on Sept. 11, 2001 -- when he was caught in lower Manhattan only blocks from the World Trade Center -- had "made it difficult to feel estranged from the struggles of the Episcopal Church in the United States." The American Episcopal Church has been at odds for more than a year with many Anglican churches worldwide over the Episcopal Church's support for same-sex unions and its vote to elect a gay man, Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire. The archbishop of Canterbury, viewed as the worldwide leader of the Anglican Communion, had made no public mention of the controversy until last night, according to several bishops and pastors who attended last night's $1,200-a-plate fund-raiser. In a brief interview after his speech, Williams declined to talk more about the issue. "I don't think I want to go into that," he said. Many pastors and bishops who attended the fund-raiser said they were relieved to hear Williams publicly acknowledge the controversy. And at least one, Canon Harold Lewis of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh, Pa., said he wished Williams had gone further. "Many of us, in fact, felt he should have said more," Lewis said. "I think many of us in the Episcopal Church are feeling a little tenuous right now." But others said Williams' comments struck the right note, particularly given his responsibilities as the worldwide leader of the Anglican Communion. "I was very grateful that he did bring that up," said the Rev. Jeffrey Walker of Christ Church in Greenwich. "But I'm also grateful that he didn't spend the whole evening on that." Although the allusion to the same-sex marriage debate was the most surprising aspect of Williams' remarks, the vast majority of the archbishop's 45-minute speech concerned the role of the Anglican Communion and other religious and human-rights groups in the United Nations. Last night's fund-raiser was expected to raise $400,000 to $500,000 for the Anglican Communion Observer to the United Nations. ITEM SIX: ((Ironically, the Archbishop begins this very long and convoluted speech by stating that as a Christian he has important things to say, that these sayings involve an important message to all the people of the world and that we (he and other Anglicans) must be caeful of “how they will be heard.” The news item posted after his speech makes clear how he was heard. The speech rambles on for many pages (I’ve snipped half), repeating the same themes, concern for poverty, Africa, aids, sexuality, for being properly heard, and an occasional reference to the question of marriage, ending with the thought of friendship binding Anglicans together in spite of forsaking fellowship at Eucharist. He suggests as a compromise to keep the Anglican Communion together a double standard of sexual behaviour, one for bishops (no homosexual unions) and another for everyone else while the church waits for discernment. – Charles) Archbishop of Canterbury's Presidential Address at ACC-13 20 JUNE 2005 Who are we talking to in this meeting? To be a Christian is to believe we are commanded and authorised to say certain things to the world; to say things that will make disciples of all nations. Our words matter. We have to think with care about them and to try and know something of how they will be heard. If they are not heard as good news from God, as words that change the world and release people from various sorts of prison, what has gone wrong? Are we talking only to ourselves? This week it will be of the greatest importance that we remember to ask, whenever we say anything, whether we are doing more than talking to ourselves - and to ask what will be heard in what we say here and how far it helps or hinders the communicating of the gospel of Jesus<snip> But meanwhile the bulk of the media's attention will probably be focused elsewhere - on the meeting that will take place just after we have finished, the meeting of the G8 leaders. Grief, anger and frustration at the injustice of the world's trade systems <snip> And we have to ask what if anything they will hear from us that is good news for them and for the poor for whom they burn with Christ-like indignation. Are we talking to them at all? What have we to say? <snip>I shall come back in a moment to what we might be saying about Jesus. Because some may object that I am trying to distract the meeting from addressing the immediate issue that needs resolution in our church, the questions around the limits of our diversity, the location of our authority and the rightness of certain developments in attitudes to sex. So let me say that I have no intention of making any distracting manoeuvre;- <snip> North-South inequality is a real issue in our church context, however hard it is for the 'North' to hear this. But since some may challenge whether all this is about taking our eyes off the immediate problem, I shall say a few words about the present crisis - hoping that these reflections will in fact lead us back to the fundamental question of what we are saying and to whom. The debate over sexuality is a story that can be told more than one way. One story is this. The churches of the 'North' are tired and confused, losing evangelistic energy. For a variety of reasons, they have been trying to reclaim their credibility by accepting and seeking to domesticate the moral values of their culture, even though this is a culture that is practically defined by the rejection of the living God. A history of over-intellectual approaches to the Bible and the communication of the faith has led to a disregard of the Bible's call to transformation. The revolt against the plain meaning of Scripture's condemnation of same-sex activity is a symptom of this general malaise. Another story is this. The churches of the North have been made aware of how much their life and work has been sustained in the past by insensitive and oppressive social patterns, with the Bible being used to justify great evils. Whether they like it or not, they inhabit a world where authority is regarded with much suspicion; it has to earn respect. In recent decades there has been a huge change in the general understanding of sexual activity. Can the gospel be heard in such a world if it seems to cling to ways of understanding sexuality that have no correspondence to what the most apparently responsible people in our culture believe? It is not enough, some have said, to stick to the words of the Bible; we have to go deeper and ask about the logic and direction of the Bible as a whole. And when we do that, we may find that it is not so impossible to reach a position that can be taken seriously in contemporary culture. Two stories, and so for some we have a problem of the Church accepting a set of false premises, a wrong and unbiblical picture of human nature; for others a problem of communicating with human beings where they actually are, in terms they can grasp<snip> I don't think that this question is quickly resolved. There are those who say, 'This is an issue of justice, comparable to the rights of black people in the Western world, or the rights of women. Our church must be inclusive of all, committed to liberation for all from the burden of prejudice and hatred'. And there are those who say, 'The Bible is clear; there is no argument to be had'. Yet the latter people often in practice find they are themselves interpreting Scripture more flexibly in other areas. And the former people may have to recognise that there is a difference between campaigning for civil equality and declaring discipline or defining holiness for the Church of Christ, a difference between including all who come to Christ and being indifferent to how human lives are actually challenged and altered by him. Very tentatively, I believe this is how we should see our situation. Christian teaching about sex is not a set of isolated prohibitions; it is an integral part of what the Bible has to say about living in such a way that our lives communicate the character of God. Marriage has a unique place because it speaks of an absolute faithfulness, a covenant between radically different persons, male and female; and so it echoes the absolute covenant of God with his chosen, a covenant between radically different partners. And those who have criticised the blessing of same-sex partnerships have been trying, I think, to say that we cannot change what we say about marriage without seriously upsetting what you might call the ecology of our teaching, the balance of how we show and speak of God. They would say that blessing same-sex unions has this effect, and that without such blessing people living in such unions are at least in tension with the common language of the Church. And living in this tension is not a good basis for taking on the responsibilities of leadership, especially episcopal leadership, whatever latitude we allow to conscience and pastoral discretion in particular instances among our people. This, incidentally, is broadly the view of the authors of the 'St Andrew's Day Statement' of 1997, which remains a helpful reference point, managing to avoid a bitter politicising of the dispute. Its method deserves more imitation than it has received. So there are two issues coming out of this that need patient study. What is the nature of a holy and Christ-like life for someone who has consistent homosexual desires? And what is the appropriate discipline to be applied to the personal life of the pastor in the Church? The last Lambeth Conference concluded that the reasons I have just outlined made it impossible to justify a change in existing practice and discipline; and the majority voice of the Communion holds firmly to this decision. It is possible to uphold this decision and still say that there are many unanswered questions in the theological picture just outlined, and that a full discussion of these needs a far more careful attention to how homosexual people see themselves and their relations. The Lambeth Resolution called for just this. It also condemned in clear terms, as did earlier Lambeth Conferences, the Windsor Report and the Primates' Dromantine statement, violent and bigoted language about homosexual people - and this cannot be repeated too often. It is possible to uphold Lambeth '98 and to oppose the shocking persecution of homosexuals in some countries, to defend measures that guarantee their civil liberties. The question is not about that level of acceptance, but about what the Church requires in its ordained leaders and what patterns of relationship it will explicitly recognise as unquestionably revealing of God. On these matters, the Church is not persuaded that change is right. And where there is a strong scriptural presumption against change, a long consensus of teaching in Christian history, and a widespread ecumenical agreement, it may well be thought that change would need an exceptionally strong critical mass to justify it. That, I think, is where the Communion as a whole stands. That is why actions by some provinces have caused outrage and hurt. To invite, as does the Windsor document, those provinces to reconsider is not to say that there are no issues to be resolved, no prejudice to be repented of (because there unquestionably is much of this); it is not to reject the idea of an 'inclusive' Church or to canonise an unintelligent reading of the Bible. It is to say that actions taken in sensitive matters against the mind of the Church cannot go unchallenged while the Church's overall discernment is as it is without injuring the delicate fabric of relations within the Church and so compromising its character. It is said that there are times when Christians must act prophetically, ahead of the consensus, and that this is such a time for some of our number. We should listen with respect to what motivates this conviction. But we also have to say that it is in the very nature of a would-be prophetic act that we do not yet know whether it is an act of true prophecy or an expression of human feeling only. To claim to act prophetically is to take a risk. It would be strange if we claimed the right to act in a risky way and then protested because that risky act was not universally endorsed by the Church straight away. If truth is put before unity - to use the language that is now common in discussing this - you must not be surprised if unity truly and acutely suffers. III But what is this teaching us about our character as a church? <snip> 'Whenever you erect yourself upon a pedestal, you do wrong; whenever you say 'I' or 'we' or 'it is so', you exchange the glory of the incorruptible for the image of the corruptible ... By striding ahead of others, even though it be for their assistance, as though the secret of God were known to you, you manifest yourself ignorant of His secret ... Even 'brokenness'; even the behaviour of the 'Biblical Man' - if these proceed from the adoption of a point of view, of a method, of a system, or of a particular kind of behaviour, by which men distinguish themselves from other men - are no more than the righteousness of men'. <snip>. When we call on others to repent, can we hear God calling us to recognise our own rebellion, whatever it is? If not, have we understood faith? We are always in danger of the easiest religious technique of all, the search for the scapegoat;<sNip> 'We are all butchers pretending to be sacrificers. When we understand this, the skandalon - the stumbling block -- that we had always managed to discharge upon some scapegoat becomes our own responsibility<SNIP> I am 'grieved' by the failings of others. I too have to accept that I am part of this failing or 'catastrophic' church. <SNIP> So the answer to the question, 'What is this teaching us about our character and our life as a church?' seems to be this. If we have understood what Paul says about faith we shall understand that we all stand together in sin and need. When we acknowledge our sin and our need of God's grace, we also begin to see our need of each other in the Body of Christ<snip> Who are we talking to? What we have to say to the world - a world that is concentrating on what we too must address, the challenge to the world's wealthy - what we have to say to the world is just this: God calls human persons to a life in which poverty is everyone's poverty and wealth is everyone's wealth. <SNIp> Out of this flows the vision of a renewed world that keeps alive our hope and our anger at a system that treats so many as unwelcome in the world, nameless statistics, making no contribution to the life of others, dispensable. <snip> The Church does not have to be defined by its activism, justified by its good causes. 'Dead end of the world with its "progress." Dead end of religion with its laws and therapeutics. Christ has taken us out of both these dead ends. The Church eternally celebrates it, and people as eternally reject it and are deaf to it' So if we ask what we need to be heard saying, perhaps it is this - that the new world is a reality here in the Church, not by our activism and our anxious struggles to keep up with an agenda, but in the gift of presence in the Eucharist and in every moment when we meet our Father through Jesus. The possibility of a world differently organised, where poverty and wealth, joy and suffering, are everyone's, a world where every person is not just a possessor of 'rights' but a precious and unique friend. That possibility is a fact among We can't guarantee anything at this point. We can't ignore the seriousness of what divides us. But if there is no easy solution, and there is not, we can at least think about this simple suggestion. If it is difficult for us to stand together at the Lord's Table as we might wish, can we continue to be friends? Its sounds so weak, doesn't? But, I actually think it is of great significance. Friendship is something that creates equality and mutuality, not a reward for finding equality or a way of intensifying existing mutuality. That's why we can talk –<snip> What are we prepared to do to nourish this sort of friendship? My sense of where we now are is that this is not high on our agenda. The debates are so close to us, so emotionally involving, that we can hardly conceive of being friends in Christ. Yet it may be that many of our difficulties have their roots in a failure to give enough energy to friendship in the past across cultures and theologies. If we can correct this, we at least lay some foundations for the reconciliation that we shall have to go on praying for, though who knows how or when it will happen? . . . . as baptised believers, we still have something to offer each other; and the friendship of the baptised should remain, whatever else divides.<snip> ITEM SEVEN: Rowan Williams Relights Anglican Women Bishops & Gay Marriage Schism : Monday, June 20 , 2005, Christianity Today The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams has said that he can see no "theological objections" to a woman leading the Anglican Communion in the future, and also that he believed that many Christians allowed their views to become so strong that they risked being bigoted against homosexuals. The comments have come in a television interview at the weekend that is sure to reignite two of the most controversial topics currently bringing the Anglican Communion to the brink of a schism. On ITV, interviewer Melvyn Bragg asked if the Archbishop could see a time when women could take over the post of the Archbishop of Canterbury – the position that leads the worldwide Anglican Church. In response Dr Williams commented that he could see such an event occurring. He said, "If the Church of England decides to ordain women as bishops then I think it would be difficult to restrict that. But that brings in the critical mass of support for women bishops in the Anglican Communion that would make it possible to have a woman Archbishop of Canterbury. So while I might not personally see any theological objection I can see quite a lot of hurdles to be overcome." Dr Williams said that the Church had moved very slowly on the issue as a consensus could not be found: "I guess it’s partly because the church tends to move only when there is more than just minimum consensus on this." When asked about homosexuality, Archbishop Williams said that the Bible clearly showed a sanctity of marriage for the expression of sexual relationships. He thought that there was pressure from some Christians to accept that homosexual relationships have elements of the same qualities associated with marriage. The Archbishop said, "And I think one of the problems we face at the moment is distinguishing between two rather different things. One is the sort of hesitation which many people quite rightly feel about moving too quickly to a new scheme which might jeopardise what’s said about marriage. And the other is, if you like, plain prejudice and bigotry about homosexuality as such, of which there is an awful lot in Christian circles." Although Dr Williams has done much work over the past year to heal the increasing rift between Christian liberals and conservatives, but his new statements have been said by many commentators as likely to stir up tensions once again. The huge rift that has opened up in the Anglican Church came about largely from the Episcopal Church in America (ECUSA) making the decision to ordinate the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Archbishop Williams has also found it hard to balance his decisions with that of his own Church of England, as he was forced to withdraw his initial support in appointing gay priest Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading by furious evangelicals and conservatives. ABP OF CANTERBURY SPEAKS OUT ON MARRIAGE AND SEXUALITY ITEM ONE: New Archbishop Of Canterbury Affirms Traditional Marriage Oct. 14, 2002 TO CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS LONDON, Oct 14, 02 (CWNews.com) - The incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the Church of England, has rounded on his evangelical critics by insisting that he does believe in the Bible and accepts traditional church teaching on homosexuality and sex outside marriage. Speaking over the weekend during a conference in his home diocese of Monmouth, south Wales, Archbishop Williams said: "I have always been committed to the church's traditional teaching on adultery and sex before marriage. It seems obvious to me that if we are to show God's costly commitment in all areas of our lives, this applies as much here as elsewhere." He continued, "We may want to be compassionate and realistic with people coming from a setting where these ideals are remote or completely unintelligible, but the last thing I'd want to do is to weaken the challenge and excitement of the traditional view that says we can and should demonstrate God's faithfulness in our bodily lives, and that this is the meaning of Christian marriage." ITEM TWO: a man of breadth and vision, capable of lifting the Church out of its timid introspection BBC NEWS UK Thursday, 20 June, 2002, 07:54 GMT 08:54 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2048249.stm By Alex Kirby BBC News Online correspondent In choosing the Most Reverend Rowan Williams as the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church of England may be in for a lively ride. Dr Williams, who published his first book at the age of 29, was only seven years older when he was appointed professor of divinity at Oxford - the university's youngest professor. He is the first Welshman - indeed he is a fluent Welsh speaker - to be selected for the Church of England's top job for at least 1,000 years. Dr Williams is an outstanding theologian, a discipline the Church has increasingly neglected. One observer says Dr Williams' address to the 1998 Lambeth Conference, the meeting staged each decade of all the worldwide Anglican church's bishops, "was seen as the most erudite, though the least understood". The archbishop is regarded as a liberal, even a radical. He is sympathetic to the proposal that the Church of England should lose its established status, and become a church on an equal footing with the Catholics, the free churches and all the other Christian denominations. This is not a view likely to endear him to traditionalists. Dr Williams also refuses to stigmatise lesbian and gay clergy in the way some of his fellow Anglican bishops have done. Raising hackles He has acknowledged knowingly ordaining a practising gay priest, something which raises Anglican hackles as few other issues do. The archbishop has also criticised Western policy since 11 September, describing the military action in Afghanistan as "morally tainted", and the bombing campaign as morally equivalent to the terrorism it sought to defeat. Dr Williams has some heavyweight support, notably the endorsement of the former archbishop of Cape Town, Desmond Tutu. Reverend Tutu said his Welsh colleague "towered head and shoulders" above all the other candidates, and had an incredible capacity to communicate, as well as a deep spirituality. Rowan Williams is seen as a man of breadth and vision, capable of lifting the Church out of its timid introspection and enabling it again to play a useful part in national life. Whether he can do so depends above all on two things - the Church's ability to forget its hang-ups over sex, and the establishment's willingness to trust somebody prepared to challenge it. ITEM THREE: Archbishop of Canterbury Argues A Case For Same-Sex Relationships EWTN ^ | November 25, 2002 LONDON, Nov 25, 02 (CWNews.com) - The new Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, says there is a case for "acknowledging faithful same-sex relationships." In a BBC documentary, "An Archbishop Like This," to be broadcast next Sunday, Archbishop Williams says the Bible doesn't forbid all homosexual activity. He says, "If the Bible is very clear-- as I think it is-- that a heterosexual indulging in homosexual activity for the sake of variety and gratification is not following the will of God, does that automatically say that that is the only sort of homosexual activity there could ever be?" He continues, "What about those people who-- with prayer and thought and seriousness and adulthood-- say 'I've never known anything different'? What are we to say to them?" The Archbishop said he didn't want to talk about gay marriage as that "isn't appropriate language" but he said he could "see a case for acknowledging faithful same-sex relationships." The archbishop's comments have angered conservative evangelicals who have recently challenged him to recant his liberal views or resign. <SNIP> ITEM FOUR: Archbishop says, “make marriage an election issue” January 4, 2005 Telegraph Co. U.K. By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent (Filed: 01/04/2005) The Archbishop of Canterbury put marriage at the heart of the election yesterday, saying that support for family stability was not a matter of middle class, Middle England nostalgia but of "life and death". In an open letter to the party leaders, Dr Rowan Williams said that family breakdown had contributed to a generation of "rootless and alienated" youths which was fuelling crime. "The climate of chronic family instability, sexual chaos and exploitation, drug abuse and educational disadvantage is a lethal cocktail," he said. Dr Williams challenged the parties to address such issues during the election campaign rather than trying to win votes by exploiting people's fears about what their rivals might do. Setting out his political priorities, he called on all parties to tackle the failures of the prison system, poverty in the third world and the degradation of the environment. His intervention follows a similar letter from the Roman Catholic bishops last month and will reignite the debate about the role of religion in politics. It could rattle Tony Blair, who has faced criticism from Church leaders for his reluctance to promote marriage because of fears of a backlash from single mothers and cohabiting couples. Dr Williams, who has described himself as a "hairy Lefty", was Mr Blair's choice for the Canterbury post but he has clashed repeatedly with the Government, most notably over the Iraq war. He said that election campaigns could easily degenerate into a competition between the parties about who could most effectively frighten the voters. The "familiar anxieties" over terrorism, asylum, immigration and crime already looked likely to feature prominently in the campaign. He said that, by simply proposing "reactive, damage-limiting solutions" to such problems, politicians could put at risk "deeper interests, rights and needs" of individuals and communities. There were, however, "things that really should make us tremble". Crime, for example, was linked to the growing number of "severely emotionally undernourished and culturally alienated" young people. The collapse of the traditional family, sexual promiscuity, drug addiction and poor educational opportunities were contributory factors. ITEM FIVE: (He who was hailed as a man of breadth and vision, capable of lifting the Church out of its timid introspection says in this interview "I don't think I want to go into that” when asked about the communion wide controversy. Arguably, every day that passes without clear and decisive leadership is costing the communion both respect and membership.) Archbishop of Canterbury breaks silence on same-sex marriage Date June 20, 2004 By Ivan H. Golden Staff Writer June 19, 2004 GREENWICH, Connecticut -- In his first public comments on the same-sex marriage controversy that has divided the Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams expressed solidarity last night with the American Episcopal Church. But he stopped short of taking sides in the divisive issue. "I'm well aware of the crossroads at which we stand," Williams said to an audience of more than 400 people during a fund-raiser at the Hyatt Regency Greenwich. Williams said he wanted to make two points about the controversy: First, he said, "the present difficulties would feel a lot more difficult were it not for the immense love and generosity shown to me by (the American Episcopal Church)." Second, Williams said his experience on Sept. 11, 2001 -- when he was caught in lower Manhattan only blocks from the World Trade Center -- had "made it difficult to feel estranged from the struggles of the Episcopal Church in the United States." The American Episcopal Church has been at odds for more than a year with many Anglican churches worldwide over the Episcopal Church's support for same-sex unions and its vote to elect a gay man, Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire. The archbishop of Canterbury, viewed as the worldwide leader of the Anglican Communion, had made no public mention of the controversy until last night, according to several bishops and pastors who attended last night's $1,200-a-plate fund-raiser. In a brief interview after his speech, Williams declined to talk more about the issue. "I don't think I want to go into that," he said. Many pastors and bishops who attended the fund-raiser said they were relieved to hear Williams publicly acknowledge the controversy. And at least one, Canon Harold Lewis of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh, Pa., said he wished Williams had gone further. "Many of us, in fact, felt he should have said more," Lewis said. "I think many of us in the Episcopal Church are feeling a little tenuous right now." But others said Williams' comments struck the right note, particularly given his responsibilities as the worldwide leader of the Anglican Communion. "I was very grateful that he did bring that up," said the Rev. Jeffrey Walker of Christ Church in Greenwich. "But I'm also grateful that he didn't spend the whole evening on that." Although the allusion to the same-sex marriage debate was the most surprising aspect of Williams' remarks, the vast majority of the archbishop's 45-minute speech concerned the role of the Anglican Communion and other religious and human-rights groups in the United Nations. Last night's fund-raiser was expected to raise $400,000 to $500,000 for the Anglican Communion Observer to the United Nations. ITEM SIX: ((Ironically, the Archbishop begins this very long and convoluted speech by stating that as a Christian he has important things to say, that these sayings involve an important message to all the people of the world and that we (he and other Anglicans) must be caeful of “how they will be heard.” The news item posted after his speech makes clear how he was heard. The speech rambles on for many pages (I’ve snipped half), repeating the same themes, concern for poverty, Africa, aids, sexuality, for being properly heard, and an occasional reference to the question of marriage, ending with the thought of friendship binding Anglicans together in spite of forsaking fellowship at Eucharist. He suggests as a compromise to keep the Anglican Communion together a double standard of sexual behaviour, one for bishops (no homosexual unions) and another for everyone else while the church waits for discernment. – Charles) Archbishop of Canterbury's Presidential Address at ACC-13 20 JUNE 2005 Who are we talking to in this meeting? To be a Christian is to believe we are commanded and authorised to say certain things to the world; to say things that will make disciples of all nations. Our words matter. We have to think with care about them and to try and know something of how they will be heard. If they are not heard as good news from God, as words that change the world and release people from various sorts of prison, what has gone wrong? Are we talking only to ourselves? This week it will be of the greatest importance that we remember to ask, whenever we say anything, whether we are doing more than talking to ourselves - and to ask what will be heard in what we say here and how far it helps or hinders the communicating of the gospel of Jesus<snip> But meanwhile the bulk of the media's attention will probably be focused elsewhere - on the meeting that will take place just after we have finished, the meeting of the G8 leaders. Grief, anger and frustration at the injustice of the world's trade systems <snip> And we have to ask what if anything they will hear from us that is good news for them and for the poor for whom they burn with Christ-like indignation. Are we talking to them at all? What have we to say? <snip>I shall come back in a moment to what we might be saying about Jesus. Because some may object that I am trying to distract the meeting from addressing the immediate issue that needs resolution in our church, the questions around the limits of our diversity, the location of our authority and the rightness of certain developments in attitudes to sex. So let me say that I have no intention of making any distracting manoeuvre;- <snip> North-South inequality is a real issue in our church context, however hard it is for the 'North' to hear this. But since some may challenge whether all this is about taking our eyes off the immediate problem, I shall say a few words about the present crisis - hoping that these reflections will in fact lead us back to the fundamental question of what we are saying and to whom. The debate over sexuality is a story that can be told more than one way. One story is this. The churches of the 'North' are tired and confused, losing evangelistic energy. For a variety of reasons, they have been trying to reclaim their credibility by accepting and seeking to domesticate the moral values of their culture, even though this is a culture that is practically defined by the rejection of the living God. A history of over-intellectual approaches to the Bible and the communication of the faith has led to a disregard of the Bible's call to transformation. The revolt against the plain meaning of Scripture's condemnation of same-sex activity is a symptom of this general malaise. Another story is this. The churches of the North have been made aware of how much their life and work has been sustained in the past by insensitive and oppressive social patterns, with the Bible being used to justify great evils. Whether they like it or not, they inhabit a world where authority is regarded with much suspicion; it has to earn respect. In recent decades there has been a huge change in the general understanding of sexual activity. Can the gospel be heard in such a world if it seems to cling to ways of understanding sexuality that have no correspondence to what the most apparently responsible people in our culture believe? It is not enough, some have said, to stick to the words of the Bible; we have to go deeper and ask about the logic and direction of the Bible as a whole. And when we do that, we may find that it is not so impossible to reach a position that can be taken seriously in contemporary culture. Two stories, and so for some we have a problem of the Church accepting a set of false premises, a wrong and unbiblical picture of human nature; for others a problem of communicating with human beings where they actually are, in terms they can grasp<snip> I don't think that this question is quickly resolved. There are those who say, 'This is an issue of justice, comparable to the rights of black people in the Western world, or the rights of women. Our church must be inclusive of all, committed to liberation for all from the burden of prejudice and hatred'. And there are those who say, 'The Bible is clear; there is no argument to be had'. Yet the latter people often in practice find they are themselves interpreting Scripture more flexibly in other areas. And the former people may have to recognise that there is a difference between campaigning for civil equality and declaring discipline or defining holiness for the Church of Christ, a difference between including all who come to Christ and being indifferent to how human lives are actually challenged and altered by him. Very tentatively, I believe this is how we should see our situation. Christian teaching about sex is not a set of isolated prohibitions; it is an integral part of what the Bible has to say about living in such a way that our lives communicate the character of God. Marriage has a unique place because it speaks of an absolute faithfulness, a covenant between radically different persons, male and female; and so it echoes the absolute covenant of God with his chosen, a covenant between radically different partners. And those who have criticised the blessing of same-sex partnerships have been trying, I think, to say that we cannot change what we say about marriage without seriously upsetting what you might call the ecology of our teaching, the balance of how we show and speak of God. They would say that blessing same-sex unions has this effect, and that without such blessing people living in such unions are at least in tension with the common language of the Church. And living in this tension is not a good basis for taking on the responsibilities of leadership, especially episcopal leadership, whatever latitude we allow to conscience and pastoral discretion in particular instances among our people. This, incidentally, is broadly the view of the authors of the 'St Andrew's Day Statement' of 1997, which remains a helpful reference point, managing to avoid a bitter politicising of the dispute. Its method deserves more imitation than it has received. So there are two issues coming out of this that need patient study. What is the nature of a holy and Christ-like life for someone who has consistent homosexual desires? And what is the appropriate discipline to be applied to the personal life of the pastor in the Church? The last Lambeth Conference concluded that the reasons I have just outlined made it impossible to justify a change in existing practice and discipline; and the majority voice of the Communion holds firmly to this decision. It is possible to uphold this decision and still say that there are many unanswered questions in the theological picture just outlined, and that a full discussion of these needs a far more careful attention to how homosexual people see themselves and their relations. The Lambeth Resolution called for just this. It also condemned in clear terms, as did earlier Lambeth Conferences, the Windsor Report and the Primates' Dromantine statement, violent and bigoted language about homosexual people - and this cannot be repeated too often. It is possible to uphold Lambeth '98 and to oppose the shocking persecution of homosexuals in some countries, to defend measures that guarantee their civil liberties. The question is not about that level of acceptance, but about what the Church requires in its ordained leaders and what patterns of relationship it will explicitly recognise as unquestionably revealing of God. On these matters, the Church is not persuaded that change is right. And where there is a strong scriptural presumption against change, a long consensus of teaching in Christian history, and a widespread ecumenical agreement, it may well be thought that change would need an exceptionally strong critical mass to justify it. That, I think, is where the Communion as a whole stands. That is why actions by some provinces have caused outrage and hurt. To invite, as does the Windsor document, those provinces to reconsider is not to say that there are no issues to be resolved, no prejudice to be repented of (because there unquestionably is much of this); it is not to reject the idea of an 'inclusive' Church or to canonise an unintelligent reading of the Bible. It is to say that actions taken in sensitive matters against the mind of the Church cannot go unchallenged while the Church's overall discernment is as it is without injuring the delicate fabric of relations within the Church and so compromising its character. It is said that there are times when Christians must act prophetically, ahead of the consensus, and that this is such a time for some of our number. We should listen with respect to what motivates this conviction. But we also have to say that it is in the very nature of a would-be prophetic act that we do not yet know whether it is an act of true prophecy or an expression of human feeling only. To claim to act prophetically is to take a risk. It would be strange if we claimed the right to act in a risky way and then protested because that risky act was not universally endorsed by the Church straight away. If truth is put before unity - to use the language that is now common in discussing this - you must not be surprised if unity truly and acutely suffers. III But what is this teaching us about our character as a church? <snip> 'Whenever you erect yourself upon a pedestal, you do wrong; whenever you say 'I' or 'we' or 'it is so', you exchange the glory of the incorruptible for the image of the corruptible ... By striding ahead of others, even though it be for their assistance, as though the secret of God were known to you, you manifest yourself ignorant of His secret ... Even 'brokenness'; even the behaviour of the 'Biblical Man' - if these proceed from the adoption of a point of view, of a method, of a system, or of a particular kind of behaviour, by which men distinguish themselves from other men - are no more than the righteousness of men'. <snip>. When we call on others to repent, can we hear God calling us to recognise our own rebellion, whatever it is? If not, have we understood faith? We are always in danger of the easiest religious technique of all, the search for the scapegoat;<sNip> 'We are all butchers pretending to be sacrificers. When we understand this, the skandalon - the stumbling block -- that we had always managed to discharge upon some scapegoat becomes our own responsibility<SNIP> I am 'grieved' by the failings of others. I too have to accept that I am part of this failing or 'catastrophic' church. <SNIP> So the answer to the question, 'What is this teaching us about our character and our life as a church?' seems to be this. If we have understood what Paul says about faith we shall understand that we all stand together in sin and need. When we acknowledge our sin and our need of God's grace, we also begin to see our need of each other in the Body of Christ<snip> Who are we talking to? What we have to say to the world - a world that is concentrating on what we too must address, the challenge to the world's wealthy - what we have to say to the world is just this: God calls human persons to a life in which poverty is everyone's poverty and wealth is everyone's wealth. <SNIp> Out of this flows the vision of a renewed world that keeps alive our hope and our anger at a system that treats so many as unwelcome in the world, nameless statistics, making no contribution to the life of others, dispensable. <snip> The Church does not have to be defined by its activism, justified by its good causes. 'Dead end of the world with its "progress." Dead end of religion with its laws and therapeutics. Christ has taken us out of both these dead ends. The Church eternally celebrates it, and people as eternally reject it and are deaf to it' So if we ask what we need to be heard saying, perhaps it is this - that the new world is a reality here in the Church, not by our activism and our anxious struggles to keep up with an agenda, but in the gift of presence in the Eucharist and in every moment when we meet our Father through Jesus. The possibility of a world differently organised, where poverty and wealth, joy and suffering, are everyone's, a world where every person is not just a possessor of 'rights' but a precious and unique friend. That possibility is a fact among We can't guarantee anything at this point. We can't ignore the seriousness of what divides us. But if there is no easy solution, and there is not, we can at least think about this simple suggestion. If it is difficult for us to stand together at the Lord's Table as we might wish, can we continue to be friends? Its sounds so weak, doesn't? But, I actually think it is of great significance. Friendship is something that creates equality and mutuality, not a reward for finding equality or a way of intensifying existing mutuality. That's why we can talk –<snip> What are we prepared to do to nourish this sort of friendship? My sense of where we now are is that this is not high on our agenda. The debates are so close to us, so emotionally involving, that we can hardly conceive of being friends in Christ. Yet it may be that many of our difficulties have their roots in a failure to give enough energy to friendship in the past across cultures and theologies. If we can correct this, we at least lay some foundations for the reconciliation that we shall have to go on praying for, though who knows how or when it will happen? . . . . as baptised believers, we still have something to offer each other; and the friendship of the baptised should remain, whatever else divides.<snip> ITEM SEVEN: Rowan Williams Relights Anglican Women Bishops & Gay Marriage Schism : Monday, June 20 , 2005, Christianity Today The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams has said that he can see no "theological objections" to a woman leading the Anglican Communion in the future, and also that he believed that many Christians allowed their views to become so strong that they risked being bigoted against homosexuals. The comments have come in a television interview at the weekend that is sure to reignite two of the most controversial topics currently bringing the Anglican Communion to the brink of a schism. On ITV, interviewer Melvyn Bragg asked if the Archbishop could see a time when women could take over the post of the Archbishop of Canterbury – the position that leads the worldwide Anglican Church. In response Dr Williams commented that he could see such an event occurring. He said, "If the Church of England decides to ordain women as bishops then I think it would be difficult to restrict that. But that brings in the critical mass of support for women bishops in the Anglican Communion that would make it possible to have a woman Archbishop of Canterbury. So while I might not personally see any theological objection I can see quite a lot of hurdles to be overcome." Dr Williams said that the Church had moved very slowly on the issue as a consensus could not be found: "I guess it’s partly because the church tends to move only when there is more than just minimum consensus on this." When asked about homosexuality, Archbishop Williams said that the Bible clearly showed a sanctity of marriage for the expression of sexual relationships. He thought that there was pressure from some Christians to accept that homosexual relationships have elements of the same qualities associated with marriage. The Archbishop said, "And I think one of the problems we face at the moment is distinguishing between two rather different things. One is the sort of hesitation which many people quite rightly feel about moving too quickly to a new scheme which might jeopardise what’s said about marriage. And the other is, if you like, plain prejudice and bigotry about homosexuality as such, of which there is an awful lot in Christian circles." Although Dr Williams has done much work over the past year to heal the increasing rift between Christian liberals and conservatives, but his new statements have been said by many commentators as likely to stir up tensions once again. The huge rift that has opened up in the Anglican Church came about largely from the Episcopal Church in America (ECUSA) making the decision to ordinate the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Archbishop Williams has also found it hard to balance his decisions with that of his own Church of England, as he was forced to withdraw his initial support in appointing gay priest Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading by furious evangelicals and conservatives. ABP OF CANTERBURY SPEAKS OUT ON MARRIAGE AND SEXUALITY ITEM ONE: New Archbishop Of Canterbury Affirms Traditional Marriage Oct. 14, 2002 TO CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS LONDON, Oct 14, 02 (CWNews.com) - The incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the Church of England, has rounded on his evangelical critics by insisting that he does believe in the Bible and accepts traditional church teaching on homosexuality and sex outside marriage. Speaking over the weekend during a conference in his home diocese of Monmouth, south Wales, Archbishop Williams said: "I have always been committed to the church's traditional teaching on adultery and sex before marriage. It seems obvious to me that if we are to show God's costly commitment in all areas of our lives, this applies as much here as elsewhere." He continued, "We may want to be compassionate and realistic with people coming from a setting where these ideals are remote or completely unintelligible, but the last thing I'd want to do is to weaken the challenge and excitement of the traditional view that says we can and should demonstrate God's faithfulness in our bodily lives, and that this is the meaning of Christian marriage." ITEM TWO: a man of breadth and vision, capable of lifting the Church out of its timid introspection BBC NEWS UK Thursday, 20 June, 2002, 07:54 GMT 08:54 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2048249.stm By Alex Kirby BBC News Online correspondent In choosing the Most Reverend Rowan Williams as the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church of England may be in for a lively ride. Dr Williams, who published his first book at the age of 29, was only seven years older when he was appointed professor of divinity at Oxford - the university's youngest professor. He is the first Welshman - indeed he is a fluent Welsh speaker - to be selected for the Church of England's top job for at least 1,000 years. Dr Williams is an outstanding theologian, a discipline the Church has increasingly neglected. One observer says Dr Williams' address to the 1998 Lambeth Conference, the meeting staged each decade of all the worldwide Anglican church's bishops, "was seen as the most erudite, though the least understood". The archbishop is regarded as a liberal, even a radical. He is sympathetic to the proposal that the Church of England should lose its established status, and become a church on an equal footing with the Catholics, the free churches and all the other Christian denominations. This is not a view likely to endear him to traditionalists. Dr Williams also refuses to stigmatise lesbian and gay clergy in the way some of his fellow Anglican bishops have done. Raising hackles He has acknowledged knowingly ordaining a practising gay priest, something which raises Anglican hackles as few other issues do. The archbishop has also criticised Western policy since 11 September, describing the military action in Afghanistan as "morally tainted", and the bombing campaign as morally equivalent to the terrorism it sought to defeat. Dr Williams has some heavyweight support, notably the endorsement of the former archbishop of Cape Town, Desmond Tutu. Reverend Tutu said his Welsh colleague "towered head and shoulders" above all the other candidates, and had an incredible capacity to communicate, as well as a deep spirituality. Rowan Williams is seen as a man of breadth and vision, capable of lifting the Church out of its timid introspection and enabling it again to play a useful part in national life. Whether he can do so depends above all on two things - the Church's ability to forget its hang-ups over sex, and the establishment's willingness to trust somebody prepared to challenge it. ITEM THREE: Archbishop of Canterbury Argues A Case For Same-Sex Relationships EWTN ^ | November 25, 2002 LONDON, Nov 25, 02 (CWNews.com) - The new Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, says there is a case for "acknowledging faithful same-sex relationships." In a BBC documentary, "An Archbishop Like This," to be broadcast next Sunday, Archbishop Williams says the Bible doesn't forbid all homosexual activity. He says, "If the Bible is very clear-- as I think it is-- that a heterosexual indulging in homosexual activity for the sake of variety and gratification is not following the will of God, does that automatically say that that is the only sort of homosexual activity there could ever be?" He continues, "What about those people who-- with prayer and thought and seriousness and adulthood-- say 'I've never known anything different'? What are we to say to them?" The Archbishop said he didn't want to talk about gay marriage as that "isn't appropriate language" but he said he could "see a case for acknowledging faithful same-sex relationships." The archbishop's comments have angered conservative evangelicals who have recently challenged him to recant his liberal views or resign. <SNIP> ITEM FOUR: Archbishop says, “make marriage an election issue” January 4, 2005 Telegraph Co. U.K. By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent (Filed: 01/04/2005) The Archbishop of Canterbury put marriage at the heart of the election yesterday, saying that support for family stability was not a matter of middle class, Middle England nostalgia but of "life and death". In an open letter to the party leaders, Dr Rowan Williams said that family breakdown had contributed to a generation of "rootless and alienated" youths which was fuelling crime. "The climate of chronic family instability, sexual chaos and exploitation, drug abuse and educational disadvantage is a lethal cocktail," he said. Dr Williams challenged the parties to address such issues during the election campaign rather than trying to win votes by exploiting people's fears about what their rivals might do. Setting out his political priorities, he called on all parties to tackle the failures of the prison system, poverty in the third world and the degradation of the environment. His intervention follows a similar letter from the Roman Catholic bishops last month and will reignite the debate about the role of religion in politics. It could rattle Tony Blair, who has faced criticism from Church leaders for his reluctance to promote marriage because of fears of a backlash from single mothers and cohabiting couples. Dr Williams, who has described himself as a "hairy Lefty", was Mr Blair's choice for the Canterbury post but he has clashed repeatedly with the Government, most notably over the Iraq war. He said that election campaigns could easily degenerate into a competition between the parties about who could most effectively frighten the voters. The "familiar anxieties" over terrorism, asylum, immigration and crime already looked likely to feature prominently in the campaign. He said that, by simply proposing "reactive, damage-limiting solutions" to such problems, politicians could put at risk "deeper interests, rights and needs" of individuals and communities. There were, however, "things that really should make us tremble". Crime, for example, was linked to the growing number of "severely emotionally undernourished and culturally alienated" young people. The collapse of the traditional family, sexual promiscuity, drug addiction and poor educational opportunities were contributory factors. ITEM FIVE: (He who was hailed as a man of breadth and vision, capable of lifting the Church out of its timid introspection says in this interview "I don't think I want to go into that” when asked about the communion wide controversy. Arguably, every day that passes without clear and decisive leadership is costing the communion both respect and membership.) Archbishop of Canterbury breaks silence on same-sex marriage Date June 20, 2004 By Ivan H. Golden Staff Writer June 19, 2004 GREENWICH, Connecticut -- In his first public comments on the same-sex marriage controversy that has divided the Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams expressed solidarity last night with the American Episcopal Church. But he stopped short of taking sides in the divisive issue. "I'm well aware of the crossroads at which we stand," Williams said to an audience of more than 400 people during a fund-raiser at the Hyatt Regency Greenwich. Williams said he wanted to make two points about the controversy: First, he said, "the present difficulties would feel a lot more difficult were it not for the immense love and generosity shown to me by (the American Episcopal Church)." Second, Williams said his experience on Sept. 11, 2001 -- when he was caught in lower Manhattan only blocks from the World Trade Center -- had "made it difficult to feel estranged from the struggles of the Episcopal Church in the United States." The American Episcopal Church has been at odds for more than a year with many Anglican churches worldwide over the Episcopal Church's support for same-sex unions and its vote to elect a gay man, Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire. The archbishop of Canterbury, viewed as the worldwide leader of the Anglican Communion, had made no public mention of the controversy until last night, according to several bishops and pastors who attended last night's $1,200-a-plate fund-raiser. In a brief interview after his speech, Williams declined to talk more about the issue. "I don't think I want to go into that," he said. Many pastors and bishops who attended the fund-raiser said they were relieved to hear Williams publicly acknowledge the controversy. And at least one, Canon Harold Lewis of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh, Pa., said he wished Williams had gone further. "Many of us, in fact, felt he should have said more," Lewis said. "I think many of us in the Episcopal Church are feeling a little tenuous right now." But others said Williams' comments struck the right note, particularly given his responsibilities as the worldwide leader of the Anglican Communion. "I was very grateful that he did bring that up," said the Rev. Jeffrey Walker of Christ Church in Greenwich. "But I'm also grateful that he didn't spend the whole evening on that." Although the allusion to the same-sex marriage debate was the most surprising aspect of Williams' remarks, the vast majority of the archbishop's 45-minute speech concerned the role of the Anglican Communion and other religious and human-rights groups in the United Nations. Last night's fund-raiser was expected to raise $400,000 to $500,000 for the Anglican Communion Observer to the United Nations. ITEM SIX: ((Ironically, the Archbishop begins this very long and convoluted speech by stating that as a Christian he has important things to say, that these sayings involve an important message to all the people of the world and that we (he and other Anglicans) must be caeful of “how they will be heard.” The news item posted after his speech makes clear how he was heard. The speech rambles on for many pages (I’ve snipped half), repeating the same themes, concern for poverty, Africa, aids, sexuality, for being properly heard, and an occasional reference to the question of marriage, ending with the thought of friendship binding Anglicans together in spite of forsaking fellowship at Eucharist. He suggests as a compromise to keep the Anglican Communion together a double standard of sexual behaviour, one for bishops (no homosexual unions) and another for everyone else while the church waits for discernment. – Charles) Archbishop of Canterbury's Presidential Address at ACC-13 20 JUNE 2005 Who are we talking to in this meeting? To be a Christian is to believe we are commanded and authorised to say certain things to the world; to say things that will make disciples of all nations. Our words matter. We have to think with care about them and to try and know something of how they will be heard. If they are not heard as good news from God, as words that change the world and release people from various sorts of prison, what has gone wrong? Are we talking only to ourselves? This week it will be of the greatest importance that we remember to ask, whenever we say anything, whether we are doing more than talking to ourselves - and to ask what will be heard in what we say here and how far it helps or hinders the communicating of the gospel of Jesus<snip> But meanwhile the bulk of the media's attention will probably be focused elsewhere - on the meeting that will take place just after we have finished, the meeting of the G8 leaders. Grief, anger and frustration at the injustice of the world's trade systems <snip> And we have to ask what if anything they will hear from us that is good news for them and for the poor for whom they burn with Christ-like indignation. Are we talking to them at all? What have we to say? <snip>I shall come back in a moment to what we might be saying about Jesus. Because some may object that I am trying to distract the meeting from addressing the immediate issue that needs resolution in our church, the questions around the limits of our diversity, the location of our authority and the rightness of certain developments in attitudes to sex. So let me say that I have no intention of making any distracting manoeuvre;- <snip> North-South inequality is a real issue in our church context, however hard it is for the 'North' to hear this. But since some may challenge whether all this is about taking our eyes off the immediate problem, I shall say a few words about the present crisis - hoping that these reflections will in fact lead us back to the fundamental question of what we are saying and to whom. The debate over sexuality is a story that can be told more than one way. One story is this. The churches of the 'North' are tired and confused, losing evangelistic energy. For a variety of reasons, they have been trying to reclaim their credibility by accepting and seeking to domesticate the moral values of their culture, even though this is a culture that is practically defined by the rejection of the living God. A history of over-intellectual approaches to the Bible and the communication of the faith has led to a disregard of the Bible's call to transformation. The revolt against the plain meaning of Scripture's condemnation of same-sex activity is a symptom of this general malaise. Another story is this. The churches of the North have been made aware of how much their life and work has been sustained in the past by insensitive and oppressive social patterns, with the Bible being used to justify great evils. Whether they like it or not, they inhabit a world where authority is regarded with much suspicion; it has to earn respect. In recent decades there has been a huge change in the general understanding of sexual activity. Can the gospel be heard in such a world if it seems to cling to ways of understanding sexuality that have no correspondence to what the most apparently responsible people in our culture believe? It is not enough, some have said, to stick to the words of the Bible; we have to go deeper and ask about the logic and direction of the Bible as a whole. And when we do that, we may find that it is not so impossible to reach a position that can be taken seriously in contemporary culture. Two stories, and so for some we have a problem of the Church accepting a set of false premises, a wrong and unbiblical picture of human nature; for others a problem of communicating with human beings where they actually are, in terms they can grasp<snip> I don't think that this question is quickly resolved. There are those who say, 'This is an issue of justice, comparable to the rights of black people in the Western world, or the rights of women. Our church must be inclusive of all, committed to liberation for all from the burden of prejudice and hatred'. And there are those who say, 'The Bible is clear; there is no argument to be had'. Yet the latter people often in practice find they are themselves interpreting Scripture more flexibly in other areas. And the former people may have to recognise that there is a difference between campaigning for civil equality and declaring discipline or defining holiness for the Church of Christ, a difference between including all who come to Christ and being indifferent to how human lives are actually challenged and altered by him. Very tentatively, I believe this is how we should see our situation. Christian teaching about sex is not a set of isolated prohibitions; it is an integral part of what the Bible has to say about living in such a way that our lives communicate the character of God. Marriage has a unique place because it speaks of an absolute faithfulness, a covenant between radically different persons, male and female; and so it echoes the absolute covenant of God with his chosen, a covenant between radically different partners. And those who have criticised the blessing of same-sex partnerships have been trying, I think, to say that we cannot change what we say about marriage without seriously upsetting what you might call the ecology of our teaching, the balance of how we show and speak of God. They would say that blessing same-sex unions has this effect, and that without such blessing people living in such unions are at least in tension with the common language of the Church. And living in this tension is not a good basis for taking on the responsibilities of leadership, especially episcopal leadership, whatever latitude we allow to conscience and pastoral discretion in particular instances among our people. This, incidentally, is broadly the view of the authors of the 'St Andrew's Day Statement' of 1997, which remains a helpful reference point, managing to avoid a bitter politicising of the dispute. Its method deserves more imitation than it has received. So there are two issues coming out of this that need patient study. What is the nature of a holy and Christ-like life for someone who has consistent homosexual desires? And what is the appropriate discipline to be applied to the personal life of the pastor in the Church? The last Lambeth Conference concluded that the reasons I have just outlined made it impossible to justify a change in existing practice and discipline; and the majority voice of the Communion holds firmly to this decision. It is possible to uphold this decision and still say that there are many unanswered questions in the theological picture just outlined, and that a full discussion of these needs a far more careful attention to how homosexual people see themselves and their relations. The Lambeth Resolution called for just this. It also condemned in clear terms, as did earlier Lambeth Conferences, the Windsor Report and the Primates' Dromantine statement, violent and bigoted language about homosexual people - and this cannot be repeated too often. It is possible to uphold Lambeth '98 and to oppose the shocking persecution of homosexuals in some countries, to defend measures that guarantee their civil liberties. The question is not about that level of acceptance, but about what the Church requires in its ordained leaders and what patterns of relationship it will explicitly recognise as unquestionably revealing of God. On these matters, the Church is not persuaded that change is right. And where there is a strong scriptural presumption against change, a long consensus of teaching in Christian history, and a widespread ecumenical agreement, it may well be thought that change would need an exceptionally strong critical mass to justify it. That, I think, is where the Communion as a whole stands. That is why actions by some provinces have caused outrage and hurt. To invite, as does the Windsor document, those provinces to reconsider is not to say that there are no issues to be resolved, no prejudice to be repented of (because there unquestionably is much of this); it is not to reject the idea of an 'inclusive' Church or to canonise an unintelligent reading of the Bible. It is to say that actions taken in sensitive matters against the mind of the Church cannot go unchallenged while the Church's overall discernment is as it is without injuring the delicate fabric of relations within the Church and so compromising its character. It is said that there are times when Christians must act prophetically, ahead of the consensus, and that this is such a time for some of our number. We should listen with respect to what motivates this conviction. But we also have to say that it is in the very nature of a would-be prophetic act that we do not yet know whether it is an act of true prophecy or an expression of human feeling only. To claim to act prophetically is to take a risk. It would be strange if we claimed the right to act in a risky way and then protested because that risky act was not universally endorsed by the Church straight away. If truth is put before unity - to use the language that is now common in discussing this - you must not be surprised if unity truly and acutely suffers. III But what is this teaching us about our character as a church? <snip> 'Whenever you erect yourself upon a pedestal, you do wrong; whenever you say 'I' or 'we' or 'it is so', you exchange the glory of the incorruptible for the image of the corruptible ... By striding ahead of others, even though it be for their assistance, as though the secret of God were known to you, you manifest yourself ignorant of His secret ... Even 'brokenness'; even the behaviour of the 'Biblical Man' - if these proceed from the adoption of a point of view, of a method, of a system, or of a particular kind of behaviour, by which men distinguish themselves from other men - are no more than the righteousness of men'. <snip>. When we call on others to repent, can we hear God calling us to recognise our own rebellion, whatever it is? If not, have we understood faith? We are always in danger of the easiest religious technique of all, the search for the scapegoat;<sNip> 'We are all butchers pretending to be sacrificers. When we understand this, the skandalon - the stumbling block -- that we had always managed to discharge upon some scapegoat becomes our own responsibility<SNIP> I am 'grieved' by the failings of others. I too have to accept that I am part of this failing or 'catastrophic' church. <SNIP> So the answer to the question, 'What is this teaching us about our character and our life as a church?' seems to be this. If we have understood what Paul says about faith we shall understand that we all stand together in sin and need. When we acknowledge our sin and our need of God's grace, we also begin to see our need of each other in the Body of Christ<snip> Who are we talking to? What we have to say to the world - a world that is concentrating on what we too must address, the challenge to the world's wealthy - what we have to say to the world is just this: God calls human persons to a life in which poverty is everyone's poverty and wealth is everyone's wealth. <SNIp> Out of this flows the vision of a renewed world that keeps alive our hope and our anger at a system that treats so many as unwelcome in the world, nameless statistics, making no contribution to the life of others, dispensable. <snip> The Church does not have to be defined by its activism, justified by its good causes. 'Dead end of the world with its "progress." Dead end of religion with its laws and therapeutics. Christ has taken us out of both these dead ends. The Church eternally celebrates it, and people as eternally reject it and are deaf to it' So if we ask what we need to be heard saying, perhaps it is this - that the new world is a reality here in the Church, not by our activism and our anxious struggles to keep up with an agenda, but in the gift of presence in the Eucharist and in every moment when we meet our Father through Jesus. The possibility of a world differently organised, where poverty and wealth, joy and suffering, are everyone's, a world where every person is not just a possessor of 'rights' but a precious and unique friend. That possibility is a fact among We can't guarantee anything at this point. We can't ignore the seriousness of what divides us. But if there is no easy solution, and there is not, we can at least think about this simple suggestion. If it is difficult for us to stand together at the Lord's Table as we might wish, can we continue to be friends? Its sounds so weak, doesn't? But, I actually think it is of great significance. Friendship is something that creates equality and mutuality, not a reward for finding equality or a way of intensifying existing mutuality. That's why we can talk –<snip> What are we prepared to do to nourish this sort of friendship? My sense of where we now are is that this is not high on our agenda. The debates are so close to us, so emotionally involving, that we can hardly conceive of being friends in Christ. Yet it may be that many of our difficulties have their roots in a failure to give enough energy to friendship in the past across cultures and theologies. If we can correct this, we at least lay some foundations for the reconciliation that we shall have to go on praying for, though who knows how or when it will happen? . . . . as baptised believers, we still have something to offer each other; and the friendship of the baptised should remain, whatever else divides.<snip> ITEM SEVEN: Rowan Williams Relights Anglican Women Bishops & Gay Marriage Schism : Monday, June 20 , 2005, Christianity Today The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams has said that he can see no "theological objections" to a woman leading the Anglican Communion in the future, and also that he believed that many Christians allowed their views to become so strong that they risked being bigoted against homosexuals. The comments have come in a television interview at the weekend that is sure to reignite two of the most controversial topics currently bringing the Anglican Communion to the brink of a schism. On ITV, interviewer Melvyn Bragg asked if the Archbishop could see a time when women could take over the post of the Archbishop of Canterbury – the position that leads the worldwide Anglican Church. In response Dr Williams commented that he could see such an event occurring. He said, "If the Church of England decides to ordain women as bishops then I think it would be difficult to restrict that. But that brings in the critical mass of support for women bishops in the Anglican Communion that would make it possible to have a woman Archbishop of Canterbury. So while I might not personally see any theological objection I can see quite a lot of hurdles to be overcome." Dr Williams said that the Church had moved very slowly on the issue as a consensus could not be found: "I guess it’s partly because the church tends to move only when there is more than just minimum consensus on this." When asked about homosexuality, Archbishop Williams said that the Bible clearly showed a sanctity of marriage for the expression of sexual relationships. He thought that there was pressure from some Christians to accept that homosexual relationships have elements of the same qualities associated with marriage. The Archbishop said, "And I think one of the problems we face at the moment is distinguishing between two rather different things. One is the sort of hesitation which many people quite rightly feel about moving too quickly to a new scheme which might jeopardise what’s said about marriage. And the other is, if you like, plain prejudice and bigotry about homosexuality as such, of which there is an awful lot in Christian circles." Although Dr Williams has done much work over the past year to heal the increasing rift between Christian liberals and conservatives, but his new statements have been said by many commentators as likely to stir up tensions once again. The huge rift that has opened up in the Anglican Church came about largely from the Episcopal Church in America (ECUSA) making the decision to ordinate the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Archbishop Williams has also found it hard to balance his decisions with that of his own Church of England, as he was forced to withdraw his initial support in appointing gay priest Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading by furious evangelicals and conservatives.