The Archbishop of Canterbury ("ABC"), the Most Rev. Dr. Rowan Williams, presided at the Lambeth conference this summer. He made it clear that gay inclusiveness was to be regarded as a kind of splinter movement and that the (mainly North American) church provinces that engaged in gay marriages and the like were to cease doing so, in order to preserve the unity of the Anglican communion. The African and South American provinces that are actively creating parallel structures in North America were also to subside. Neither group has reacted favorably to his request. When Williams was elected ABC five years ago, he was Archbishop of Wales, and known as a fairly liberal theologian. Today's the Times published an article, Rowan Williams: gay relationships 'comparable to marriage', by its Religion Correspondent, Ruth Gledhill, where she quotes some private correspondance shown to her by Williams. In an exchange of letters with an evangelical Christian, written some eight years ago when he was Archbishop of Wales, he described his belief that biblical passages criticising homosexual sex were not aimed at people who were gay by nature. The letters, written in the autumn of 2000 and 2001, were exchanged with Dr. Deborah Pitt, a psychiatrist and evangelical Christian living in his former archdiocese in South Wales, who had written challenging him on the issue. [Update: Another article by Gledhill, New light on Archbishop of Canterbury's view on homosexuality, was published later the same day.]
Williams told Pitt that by the end of the 1980s he had "definitely come to the conclusion" that the Bible did not denounce faithful relationships between people who happened to be gay. In his 1989 essay The Body’s Grace, Dr Williams argued that the Church’s acceptance of contraception meant that it acknowledged the validity of nonprocreative sex. This could be taken as a green light for gay sex. That is all well and good. Liberals have, however, been bitterly disappointed that a man whom they regarded as chosen to advance their agenda has instead abided by the traditionalist consensus of the majority.
In a recent interview, the Archbishop said: "When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why."
I wonder. His statement seems to mean, as one commentator put it: "If I’m asked for my views, as a church leader rather than a theologian, I have to be dishonest."
As a pastor, I have the same responsibility regarding Church teachings as the ABC, although not the same visibility or influence. My view is that I will teach "mainstream" Christianity as long as it does not clash with my own considered opinions. I will not lightly deviate from Church dogma. If I find myself in opposition to the dogma, however, I have a responsibility to follow my conscience and be true to what God has revealed to me, be it through the Bible, through tradition, through my intellect or through my conscience.
Then, of course, I'll have to bear the consequences of my stance - if my church finds that I deviate too much, it will discipline me in some way, I suppose. So far, it has refrained from doing so; instead, I have been exonerated by the Diocesan Chapter of Porvoo.
Williams told Pitt that by the end of the 1980s he had "definitely come to the conclusion" that the Bible did not denounce faithful relationships between people who happened to be gay. In his 1989 essay The Body’s Grace, Dr Williams argued that the Church’s acceptance of contraception meant that it acknowledged the validity of nonprocreative sex. This could be taken as a green light for gay sex. That is all well and good. Liberals have, however, been bitterly disappointed that a man whom they regarded as chosen to advance their agenda has instead abided by the traditionalist consensus of the majority.
In a recent interview, the Archbishop said: "When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why."
I wonder. His statement seems to mean, as one commentator put it: "If I’m asked for my views, as a church leader rather than a theologian, I have to be dishonest."
As a pastor, I have the same responsibility regarding Church teachings as the ABC, although not the same visibility or influence. My view is that I will teach "mainstream" Christianity as long as it does not clash with my own considered opinions. I will not lightly deviate from Church dogma. If I find myself in opposition to the dogma, however, I have a responsibility to follow my conscience and be true to what God has revealed to me, be it through the Bible, through tradition, through my intellect or through my conscience.
Then, of course, I'll have to bear the consequences of my stance - if my church finds that I deviate too much, it will discipline me in some way, I suppose. So far, it has refrained from doing so; instead, I have been exonerated by the Diocesan Chapter of Porvoo.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar