I read the front page of The Times on Thursday August 7th with great interest. It was entitled: "Archbishop believes gay sex is good as marriage". When I reached the end of the article, my first conclusion was that immediately even the Times was guilty of creating a false impression with its title. Dr Williams' views are not by any means simply that any gay sex is as good as marriage. And it is such inaccuracy that is largely responsible for the bitter exchange of views and a church which stands divided, potentially on the verge of schism.
The essence of the article itself was that, in letters written to a psychiatrist and evangelical Christian who had challenged him at the turn of the decade regarding his views on the issue of homosexuality, Williams suggested that he had 'definitely come to the conclusion' that the Bible did not denounce faithful relationships between two people who happened to be gay, but rather the engaging in homosexual activity of people who were actually heterosexual.
He gave other justifications, but this was the crux of his viewpoint. No doubt this view will anger and irritate thousands of Christians, but that is not what I wish to focus on here. I could write at length about my views on this topic, and would probably still not reach a definite conclusion.
But the point for me, here, lies in the article which is written in the same issue of the Times. This article talks about Williams as a man who is "publicly conservative, privately liberal". This very situation is one which disappoints and saddens me. Williams is a man who does not reach conclusions lightly, or ponder things superficially (in fact, he claims that the aforementioned view on homosexuality is one he reached after "20 years of study and prayer").
Williams, in fact, has degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge, and has lectured at both of these universities, as well as other colleges. So there is no doubt about the fact that, when dealing with our Archbishop of Canterbury, we are dealing with a man of great intelligence, which, it has to be said, is far superior to most of ours.
And yet as a Church we seem to think that our incessant recitation of the same verse from Leviticus (a book which, incidentally, also contains warnings against sea creatures and the skin of pigs), or the verses from the Bible which did not even contain the word "homosexual" until 1946, is of far superior status to Williams' 20 years of study and prayer.
I am inclined to view this man with great respect and admiration...both as a Christian and an academic. And at present I also view him with sympathy. Here stands a man who has put great dedication into seeking the truth of Almighty God and is now unable to express or act in accordance with that truth, because he is at the head of an organisation which, frankly, deems its own prejudices superior to enlightened research, prayer, tolerance, and the love of the Son of the God which should be at the heart of all it says and does.
Suffice to say, I do not envy Williams at present.
Back to the Holy Drawing Board, with some relief
-
For a conventional set up like the Church of England General Synod, all its
structures loaded for deference, yesterday's result was something of a
shock t...
1 comment:
I too have a lot of respect for Rowan Williams. Unfortunately his kind of careful theological reflection does not sit comfortably with the adversarial manner of most media reporting - a manner which sadly many Christians have adopted in this present debate. This was the point of the approach taken by the bishops at the Lambeth Conference, to try to get away from that way of doing things.
We could wish our Archbishop to be more canny in his dealings with the media - but perhaps that would be buying into the same assumptions about the way we should conduct debate.
Of course these views of Rowan's, that have been recently picked up on, are not really news - all this was rehearsed before at the time of the Jeffrey John affair. The point is always to create some new stir - and so sell more newspapers!
Post a Comment