>Frater: As one who did not support the choice of the Archbishop of Wales
(The Bishop of London or even better the Archbishop of York were the
choices of most AC's) I have been watching carefully what he has said and
done since being made Primate of All England.
Let us remember that he is primarily an intellectual (who would be
happier in a monastery I think) who is discovering the reality that
Church House and Lambeth Palace are a far cry from semi-rural
Monmouthshire!
That being said ,his comments on an
affinity with ECUSA because of his being in New York City on 9/11 is
perfectly understandable and that he has received love and affection from
the eastern establishment (wheremost of ECUSA lies) is also perfectly
understandable.
There are still many parishes there
who given the choice between a 'Yank' and a 'Brit' will choose the
latter.
That being said ; his feelings
on ECUSA and ACC being'estranged' from the larger ACC are almost
irrelevant.
If there are ,as we are told 71
million Anglicans (36 Provinces) world wide, then the perhaps 1.5 million
active communicants in North America are a tiny fraction of that total.
While monetarily they are well off, more and more other places are
achieving a measure of autonomy that means the money issue becomes
secondary (indeed on of the signs of independence is financial freedom
from outside resources).
One thinks of the
Church in Korea-now a Province and growing 8-9% a year for example as the
classic example. Their relations with Canterbury are very different than
they were in 1979 when the Bishop of Taejon (Mark Pae) was forbidden by
the then Archbishop(Coggan) from participating in the Denver
consecrations-and obeyed-tho he did send the famous letter as outlined in
the 1st of the Apostolic Canons (Padaelion).
In
fact Canterbury(and the Consultative Council) has less power over the ACC
than the Oecumenical Patriarch has over say the Russian Orthodox Church .
Both men have their own dioceses (Canterbury and the Greek Church) but
that is all.
They are not Popes and
in the case of ++Williams will be gone when they are 70. If ECUSA and the
ACC disappeared from the ACC there would be a brief aftershock and that
would be that. Blessings. GDVW+
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