Rowan Williams's interview

[Canadian Phil]

I'm not sure who's been following this. We seem to be in the summer doldrums or something, but I'd like to see how people on the board are feeling about this interview (which has been splashed all over Anglican blogosphere)

I'll give two versions:

The Telegraph article which reports the interview:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/27/ngay27.xml

Here are a few tastes:

The archbishop of Canterbury has told homosexuals that they need to change their behaviour if they are to be welcomed into the church, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Rowan Williams has distanced himself from his one-time liberal support of gay relationships and stressed that the tradition and teaching of the Church has in no way been altered by the Anglican Communion's consecration of its first openly homosexual bishop.

AAC has posted the full interview (presumably translated from the Dutch)

aacblog.classicalanglican.net/archives/002236.html

I haven't read the full version yet, but will by the end of tonight.

So, what do you think?

Peace,
Phil

[srigdon]

Well, perhaps Rowan - like many left leaning people - is trying to deal with the unexpected ferocity of the reaction after GC2003. Not just the reaction to VGR, but to the fact that the scope of the debate has been expanded into all sorts of areas concerning the 'direction of the church.' I think we've all learned a bit more than we wanted to know about what people in the pews - and the pulpit - believe.

If we've learned anything the last 3 years, it's that the left has just as many arrogant wackos in it as the right, and they need some restraining.

[WilliamH]

I have been praying for +Williams to become more Orthodox, maybe he has. Maybe the position makes the man. Like Thomas Becket when raised to Archbishop he belonged to the Church not to Henry. Maybe +Williams belongs to the Church and not the left (or the right).

[angli_fan]

"Gays must change, says archbishop" may make a provocative headline, but there's less here, really, than meets the eye.

A couple of quotes that jumped out at me:

I don't believe inclusion is a value in itself....Welcome is. We welcome people into the Church, we say: 'You can come in, and that decision will change you.' We don't say: 'Come in and we ask no questions.' I do believe conversion means conversion of habits, behaviours, ideas, emotions. The boundaries are determined by what it means to be loyal to Jesus Christ. That means to display in all things the mind of Christ.

This is apparently the quote that became twisted into the headline given above. A more honest rendering might be "Being a member of the Body of Christ will change you, says archbishop", but honestly, who would read an article with a title like that? Note what +++Williams is NOT saying-he does not say that gay people must repent of their gayness in order to be a part of the church. He is only saying what honest Christians have always said: Every person who comes to Christ must be prepared to be changed; often in unexpected ways.

About the possibility of changing the teaching of the church, the Archbishop is all over the map, and appropriately so, in my view:

They are saying: this is an issue we must talk about. But if we are going to have time to discuss this, prayerfully, thoughtfully, we really don't need people saying: we must change it now. The discussion must not be foreclosed by a radical agenda. The decision hasn't been made yet. Or rather, the tradition and teaching of the Church is what it always was....I would feel very uncomfortable if my Church would say: this is beyond discussion, for ever. Equally I have to guard the faith and teaching of the Church. My personal ideas and questions have to take second place....Lambeth resolutions don't fall from heaven. There have been resolutions in the past that have then been discussed and moved on. Whether this one will ever change I don't know. Certainly not without a lot more attention and patience with each other.

Sounds about right to me.

Pax;

angli_fan

[Canadian Phil]

Interesting responses.

I think, to some degree, this is being taken in some liberal and some conservative circles as a complete conversion to a conservative view on the part of ++Williams. Like angli-fan, I'm not sure it is.

Yet, what I find hopeful in it is that he is hitting so many of the conservative's theological concerns in a way that makes us think that ++Williams is getting it and is taking a tack which he believes is where the Communion is at. The fact is, of course, that he is still keeping open the opportunity for discussion, but he is stating that, so far, this is where much of the Communion is at.

I'm pleased by this statement because it is showing ++Williams showing considerable leadership. I always thought he had it in him, but it is nice to see such a statement.

Peace, l
Phil

[angli_fan]

Simon Barrow writes about Apb. Williams' interview for Ekklesia:

What Dr Williams seems to be saying, therefore, is that self-styled ‘liberals’ often forget the transformational core of the Gospel and substitute for it a message of rights and inclusivity which underplays the Gospel’s further gift and impact. And that what self-styled ‘conservatives’ often forget is that Jesus’ toughest opponents often deemed ‘scripturally faithful’ certain ideas of purity and rightness which turned out to be human barriers against those who God especially loves – people deemed unacceptable within the established social order.


Read the whole thing:
www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/barrow/article_06099rowan.shtml