I am curious as to the Sign on the soap box, is it an A for archbishop? or is it the Symbol of McDonalds?

A fast food version of theology-ecclesiology maybe?

Does he need to say things like “more like a church”? As menmbers of Anglican churches you are not, only part of the Church Universal.

Or indeed speak of the “confused or reckless innovation in some provinces is felt as a body-blow to the integrity of mission and a matter of literal physical risk to Christians”?? Doesn’t Rowan read the news??? The shootings in the Unitarian church in Tennessee, the Asylum granted to persecuted Davis Mac-Iyalla?

Dr Williams 'appears' to give an even handed analysis but careful reading exposes the bias. Is he really asking for more time and more personal sacrifice from homosexual christians? He sounds more like a World War 1 British general writing off collateral damage amongst the troops in the trenches because his is the long game plan.

I try not to get annoyed at all this but I confess to running out of patience with Dr Wiliams and the beginnings of finding him less than a man of intergrity.

There's a piece in 'America' on +Williams' speech that's worth reading. How it is influenced by two figures he admires - the idea of 'kenosis' in Chiara Lubich and that of scapegoating in Rene Girard.

http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=70445BD9-5056-8928-105A1709EEA14492

At last, something conservatives and liberals can surely agree on. To quote another fine upstanding Anglican: "You have been sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

MRG,

Where are we then? The end of your note is,your way or no way? I think we recognize this as a dead end! R W is aiming for something more than this.

|Ben W

If Rowan is so taken with Girard's views on triangulation and scapegoating, he would hardly engage in the not so subtle scapegoating that he constantly indulges towards queer folks, for example.

But of course, the whole business grows dim when keeping the conservatives at the tables is concerned, as the only immediate and powerful way to appeal to them is to talk very highly of them as examples of faith while they talk very meanly and lowly of you know who.

The sound bite presentation, welcoming does not mean ... is also misleading and unwelcome fakery from a thinker of Rowan's reputation and stature. He knows full well that any queer man or woman who (A) candidates for Holy Orders in TEC or Canada or elsewhere, or who (B) lives an ethically committed adult relationship in daily life, or who (C) lives an ethically committed parenting in daily life ... is already meeting (or in some glorious instances, exceeding?) the common sense minimums we take as our threshhold for ethical behaviors in any of these three realms.

Such folks are meeting good standards, then.

But to hear the sound bite you would think such people just drove over, drug-soaked and glittered, from, say, an all night rave where they foolishly took a strange notion to rumble off to the nearest local Anglican parish to be ordained as priests, get their latest relationships blessed, and speed adopt any free children being handed out by some crazed modern adoption agency operating on the rave's fringes.
It is exactly this failure of the traditional views, to take account of significant ethical differences in contrasting queer behaviors outside the pat tropes of be straight or be celibate, that is hugely on display.

A deeper, more interesting question? Can any conservative believer, care at all, if, say, any same sex adult citizens bother to (A) honestly tell the truth, (B) commit themselves in care to each other, or (C)parent well? - because none of it makes any ethical difference, and all the queer folks are going to hell regardless?

Still, false presuppositions immediately strummed by Rowan's poor choice of sound bite position phrases. If he doesn't know full well better, he ought to know better. Perhaps Rowan is perhaps still letting Girard's views work their subtle ways to his heart, if not also his mind?

The critical thing about +Rowan's address is that he never imagines himself as a homosexual. It might be eye-opening, especially in the African context.

Overall, this has the quality of a kindergarten teacher urging everyone to just get along and play nice. And, sweet as all of that is, it won't work in this context. The issues faced are not kindergarten issues.

Once again, RW offers platitudes instead of action. And yes, I know he is not the pope of the AC. Still, one can't but think he could have done more with what he has. Frankly, by not taking a firm position on the presenting issues and acting on that position, he has reduced his office to something close to irrelevancy. At this point I almost think I would rather he had taken his stand more firmly in the "reappraiser" camp rather than trying to have his cake and eat it too. He has ended up making himself, and to some degree his office, look increasingly impotent, senseless, and absurd.

There is an old saying about those who will have peace at the expense of honor--ultimately they will have neither. It would be a pity to apply this to RW. I am sure he means well, but . . .

Steven

I'm guessing that the "A" on the lectern is an alpha, as in "and omega," not a McDonald's reference...unless you've tried their delicious McCommunion burger.

Straight to hell, I'm going. Yup.

"The critical thing about +Rowan's address is that he never imagines himself as a homosexual."

Do any of them, ever? It was interesting to me a few months ago when conservatives on this board were denying the idea of gay bashing, claiming that any fear we have of violence is overreaction. I was accused of hysteria. Yet, none of them seemed to be more than peripherally aware of who Matthew Sheppard was, and most not even that. Here is someone who is an icon of antigay violence for most of us, when we saw the pictures of him on television we saw ourselves tied to that fence and shuddered, and those who were denying the fact of violence in our lives, telling us we were rebels against God who could change if we wanted to, denying that the hateful rhetoric that is the core of their approach to gay people actually had anything to do with Matthew's murder, they didn't even know who he was! Oh, but they've all listened to our stories and remain "unconvinced" of the worth of our lives! It's so maddening! Personally, I think a darned good many of them won't imagine themselves as homosexuals because that is too close to facing something they have buried in their own hearts for years. That's why they don't understand why we can't just be celebate or get married. They've lived the lie all their lives, and convinced themselves they are happy in the process, so why can't we?

After reading the AB of C's comments last night, it occurred to me for the first them that it seems he has choreographed the entire Lambeth Conference - - not as an instrument of listening, exchanging views (on subjects like homosexual inclusion) but as a carefully constructed instrument to close down the homosexual conversation and to cement the Communion to the disgraceful idea of a covenant.

I can hear him . . . No, we don't want to talk to Robinson - - keep him out - - he might tell us something we don't want to hear. We'll set a very tight agenda so there is no wiggle room. Well, make the Episcopalians so ashamed of breaking up the Communion over this silly issue that they'll learn to hate again.

His "reporting" rhetoric last night on 'do we have to bless what they do" is a phrase that should never be repeated - - under any circumstance. It's like a white bigot saying do I have insure the rights of black citizens or can I just live in the same country with them. No intelligent person would repeat it. But of course bigotry toward homosexuals is still broadly acceptable. Thank God the governments of the West are taking moral leadership on this issue, the churches have abrogated their responsibility to stop this hate.

Statements like that make every homosexual feel less human, less Christian, less saved. And it makes every bigot thing they too can disdain homosexuals, often with tragic results It is unworthy of Rowan's intelligence and the message of Christ. We'll impose a dogma, just or not, as long as it is dogma.

This is a tactical campaign worthy of Rome. Rowan has disgraced the Communion and Canterbury.

I disagree with those who say he means well. He knows better about Christ, the interpretation of scripture and the nature of homosexuality. Is intellectual dishonesty not sinful - - particularly when it hurst those who are precious to God?

Justice - - if not now, when?

Richard

The sign on this soap box certainly doesn't look like an alfa which is one of the Greek letters where the origin in Phillisté letters are unmistakable.

alef was originally the head of an ox viewed from the side.

Sirs, thank you for posting my comments. I have noted several egregious typos. Would you be so kind as to post this corrected copy?

- - -

After reading the AB of C's comments last night, it occurred to me for the first time that it seems he has choreographed the entire Lambeth Conference - - not as an instrument of listening, exchanging views (on subjects like homosexual inclusion), but as a carefully constructed instrument to close down the homosexual conversation and to cement the Communion to the disgraceful idea of a covenant.

I can hear him . . . No, we don't want to talk to Robinson - - keep him out - - he might tell us something we don't want to hear. We'll set a very tight agenda so there is no wiggle room. We’ll make the Episcopalians so ashamed of breaking up the Communion over this silly issue that they'll learn to hate again.

His "reporting" rhetoric last night on 'do we have to bless what they do’ is a phrase that should never be repeated - - under any circumstance. It's like a white bigot saying, “Do I have to insure the rights of black citizens or can I just live in the same country with them?” No intelligent person would repeat it. But of course bigotry toward homosexuals is still broadly acceptable. Thank God the governments of the West are taking moral leadership on this issue; the churches have abrogated their responsibility to stop this hate.

Statements like that make every homosexual feel less human, less Christian, less saved. And it makes every bigot think they too can disdain homosexuals, often with tragic results. It is unworthy of Rowan's intelligence and the message of Christ. We'll impose a dogma, just or not, as long as it is dogma.

This is a tactical campaign worthy of Rome. Rowan has disgraced the Communion and Canterbury.

I disagree with those who say he means well. He knows better about Christ, the interpretation of scripture and the nature of homosexuality. Is intellectual dishonesty not sinful - - particularly when it hurts those who are precious to God?

Justice - - if not now, when?

Richard

"His "reporting" rhetoric last night on 'do we have to bless what they do" is a phrase that should never be repeated"

And yet, Richard, isn't that really the ESSENCE of Rowan's perspective---and moreso the (so-called!) "traditionalist" side?

In this POV, gay people don't have a BEing, only a DOing (the latter NOT meaning, of course, the making of marital vows or the hard work of carrying them out, day-after-day, year-after-year---but ONLY what they IMAGINE we "get up to" in bed).

"what they do": no matter the faith we profess, no matter the works of mercy we practice, all too many Anglicans (w/ Rowan's encouragement) give no more thought to us than the "thought" it takes to deface a flyer (on "African Voices" http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2008/07/homophobic-grafitti-at-lambeht.html ): "Disgusting"

Lord have mercy!

I guess as 'Moderator' in this whole argument about Gays/Women/Border-Crossing, the Archbishop of Canterbury has to present both sides (or is it all three sides) of the argument - simply in order for all of the bishops to more easily comprehend what the stakes are, for all concerned.
A bit of good old hermeutical Study wouldn't go amiss in all of this.

One can't help thinking, though, that the Conservative Faction (Biblical Literalists apart) have the luxury of being able to appeal to the Traditionalist argument. One wonders what would have happened to the Saviour's ministry of liberation if he, too, had waited for the traditionalists to agree with him before launching his ministry of redemption?

Too often, it seems, we have been on the back foot, waiting for approval from the would-be procrastinators before we begin to advocate the next step in the ministry of redemption that has been entrusted to us in the Church.

Look what happened to our Roman Catholic friends after Good Pope John opened up the Church to the freedom of the Holy Spirit. The celebrations did not last long, before the conservative Curia nipped that in the bud. and where are they now? Resiling to the Latin Mass and all that went with it - including the banning of women from the sactuaries of many of their churches.

The subsequent loss of R.C. vocations to the priesthood and the religious orders has been one of the results of a lack of the willingness to move with the signs of the times - to ordain married priests first, and perhaps women later. But it is bound to come. When? Only God knows!

A similar case can be made for the recognition of the ministry of LGBT's in our own Church. They have always been there - having to compromise their honesty by pretending to be different from what they know themselves to be. How long can this subterfuge go on? Is it healthy to have to engage in subterfuge on such an important thing as one's intrinsic sexual nature?

But then, of course, the Church has still to come to terms with the fact that LGBT people are actually part of God's plan for humanity in diversity. The world knows this, but the Church is still holding back from what it perceives to be an abomination. God help us! I pray that the Holy Spirit will open the minds and hearts (and maybe the eyes and ears) of every one of the Bishops at Lambeth, to engage in truthful dialogue about what the Gospel is asking them to do about these matters.

Ron Smith,

You constantly operate from very large assumptions!

On homosexuality and diversity you say, "the world knows this . . ." The critical issue that we have confronted here related to the Muslim view, do the billion people there not count? If you go to Asia, Africa, or Latin America are they for this?

The fact is if you go beyond a few secularized western countries people have not endorsed it. Even in those countries the concern of people is with civil rights and fairness (in my view properly so) without endorsing it as a way of life to be encouraged. So what "world" are you talking about?

Ben W

OK, Ben, let's put it this way--the world that informs its faith with science and reason knows this.

Ben W

You constantly operate from very large assumptions!

(If I may say so.)

Thanks, Pat and Goran. It does seem that Ben W really does have his own problem about God's acceptance of the diverse human beings who happen to be 'different' from the majority. I supppose if he had been a bishop, and invited to the Indaba Bible Studies, he might have been privy to a disturbing revelation - that the old, out-dated shibboleths we were reared on at Sunday School, about the inerrancy of every word of the King James Bible, no longer obtains amongst scholars.

However; God does love Ben W. - whatever his sexual orientation may be. So perhaps he can now relax and enjoy the discussion, without prejudice

"The critical issue that we have confronted here related to the Muslim view, do the billion people there not count?"

When it comes to Christian belief and practice, no they don't. Muslims deny the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, for a start. So, if Muslims say homosexuals deserve death, we as Christians are not bound to that. One issue we have also been confronting in this contest is what appears to most to be a Christian subordination of the Gospel to the Qur'an. "The Muslims will kill us if you in the West are nice to gay people." Well, on the one hand, I have always said that if we in the West are going to do things that will jeopardize the lives of our fellow Christians on the other side of the planet, we'd better be prepared to go stand with them when the onslaught comes. I am disinclined to have other people lose their lives for my actions. Of course, when I made that claim, no less than Tunde Popoola said that, were I to do that, he would do nothing to prevent others in Nigeria from throwing me in jail! All the same, what does it say that Christians are unwilling to even consider seeking the guidance of the Spirit on this out of fear of what persecution they will bring on themselves? And why do you look to Islam as a reference point for your own beliefs? What's important is what we discern our God is calling us to do, not whether or not people of other faiths will agree with us. Also, what do you say to the fact that the overwhelming weight of scientific study shows that homosexuality is deeply rooted in our being, starts likely before birth, is not chosen, and is fixed for the vast majority of us? What do you say to all those scientific minds who say that "reparative therapies" are dangerous and unethical? Many conservatives have the idea that modern science on this is no more than political correctness run amock. Perhaps I am reading more into your words than I ought, but if you do not feel this way, could you come out and say it and dispel the suspicion that you ignore the science on this?