The Archbishop of Canterbury saved the big news to the end of his press conference at the conclusion of the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury on August 3, 2008.Rowan Williams clarifies his position on "full inclusion" as a human rights issue in The Episcopal Church by saying at a press conference the close of the Lambeth Conference "That is an assumption I can't accept."
In the closing minutes of a standing-room only press conference, he states he cannot accept that full inclusion of gays and lesbians in all rites and order of the church as a human right, as well as clarifying his views on the"prophetic actions" taken by Episcopal Church dioceses without penalty as the cause of the crisis in the Anglican Communion. He also clarifies what he believes "pastoral response" which differs substantially, even dramatically from how The Episcopal Church defines that phrase by its actions, saying that "I am not very happy about that."
The question remains unanswered - what will he do now? He did say he will be contacting the GAFCON bishops and primates directly for their insights and reflections and that it was time to call a primates meeting.
Watch below or here Rowan Williams explains his views on rites, orders, and pastoral response as well as rejecting the assumption that "full inclusion" (i.e. conveying holy orders or same sex blessings on non-celibate homosexuals) is a human right. See for yourself.
16 comments:
A day late and a dollar short. Earlier clarity would have been useful. Clarity delayed is clarity obfuscated.
I have a hard time believing TEC is going to change their stripes no matter what anyone they don't agree with tells them.
Joy in disobedience became "do your own thing" in the 60s, and that's where the paradigm of the controlling monarchy of TEC is stuck.
I hate to say this about an elitist Beltway pundit (j/k), but you are providing the best Lambeth coverage. Your technical proficiency is wonderful, and your ability to show up at the right place at the right time is some wonderful concoction of talent and grace.
Prayers continue for you.
+++Rowan Cantuar has finally spoken. Bittersweet moment here as I'm greatful that the ABC has spoken directly to the issue, and done so without equivocation. I do wish however that he had the pastoral resolve to make this statement a month ago.
Anyhoo, wh know where the shepherd stands
The Lambeth Reflections solution (limit ministry of homosexuals to priesthood and laity) is disgusting.
The church must address and minister to the disorientation of identity and misdirection of sexual desire at the root.
To persons with SS attraction need healing and new identities as do all sinners. This solution does not address or heal or redeem the souls of persons so affected.
Scripture does not recognize or exempt a separate 'people' or give them permission to identify or excuse themselves on the basis of their feelings, perceptions or preferences.
I Corinthians 6:9-11 and Hebrews 7:25 are inclusive and state God's power to heal.
It is a shame for the church to find and to leave souls in the hell of confusion and pain...and to be the perpetuation of that hell, to offer a false compassion that kills both now and in the world to come.
Sorry our paths did not cross in Canterbury.
As for +Rowan, clarifying "his position on "full inclusion" as a human rights issue in The Episcopal Church by saying at a press conference the close of the Lambeth Conference "That is an assumption I can't accept." ... let's not forget that we live in nation conceived and dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal ... and +Rowan represents a tradition that probably didn't think tea in the Boston Harbor was such a good idea either.
In short, the bonds of affection that unite us in faith to the Archbishop of Canterbury are not bonds of obedience that call us to agree with his "assumptions."
Hope you get some post-Lambeth R&R.
I'd urge all to remember that this ++Rowan Williams is also the same ++Rowan from this press conference in NOLA.
Susan,
why is it you persist in the assumption the values of the Church must comply with the values of the surrounding society?
Those are interesting comments, Susan. I would say that there are some things both the GAFCON folks and the Full Inclusion folks may have in common (and perhaps Rowan and the Colonial Institutionalists hope that either we just cancel each other out or have a showdown at the OK Corral. I remember another illustration of this at General Convention 2006 when both the ACN and the Integrity folks opposed B0333 - for different reasons, but again it was an Institutional Appeal that won the day.
I thought it was it was interesting that Rowan discredited rather emphatically (in his Rowan way) the human rights argument which is most often called "full inclusion." That really surprised me that he would do that so publicly. I wonder what caused him to do that.
bb
Susan, why do you even bother with your lame rhetoric? Even you must realize how fallacious and silly it sounds. Did Bishops participate in the revolutionary war? Can 'equal rights' be used to justify committing any behavior without consequences?
Perhaps a silly aside but I cannot help noticing the question by one of the "anonymous" commenters about "Did Bishops participate in the Revolutionary war?" I do not understand the point of the inquiry but am quite certain that many clerics - and I believe a Bishop or two - were verbal and/or physical combatants.
As another historical point, I have examined some of the predictions made 2 or 3 years ago predicting the numbers that would run away from TEC by now and have been astounded by how far off the reasserter pundits were - what are the current predictions and will they be more accurate or useful? Thanks for your reasoned and, to the extent possible, impassionate thoughts on these quantitative matters.
Folks, it is useless to address comments to Susan Russell. Her M.O. is to hit an orthodox site, make her comment and not return to defend her dribble. Bet to treat her as you would a troll and ignore her. Pearls before swine and all that.
Ettouche! My objection was poorly stated. What I meant to express was, that breaking communion over a rejection of the clear doctrine of scripture cannot be paralleled to bishops who happen to be living in Britain during the Revolutionary ware 'not thinking' that the Boston Tea Party was a good idea (although Russell doesn't document this assertion).
The implication is that since Rowan got over losing the Revolutionary War, he will also get over the clear teaching of Scripture. It's just ludicrous. It's hard to come up with a charitable placement of Russell on the Hammersten Hierarchy of Human Behavior sometimes, you know?
rick a, just answering the LGBT* activist according to her folly. But you're right, although they've had much success with these arguments in secular circles, and think they can repeat this nonsense like mindless automata in every context, the secular crowd tends to be a bit ... sloppy when evaluating ethical arguments like this.
anonymous thanks for clarification but don't be too sure the Brits have forgiven us for the Revolution - or wouild they call it an insurrection
OK, now I can see the video.
Post a Comment