We’ve all heard a lot of depressing bafflegab from Anglican leaders in recent months. For me, this hits a new low.
In an interview with Oi!, a British magazine by and for teenagers, The Rev Dr Rowan Williams had this to offer in response to a question about his support for ordaining homosexual clergy.
“I have no problem with gay clergy who aren’t in relationships, although there are savage arguments about the issue you might have heard about. Our jobs mean we have to adhere to the Bible. Gay clergy who don’t act upon their sexual preferences do, clergy in practising homosexual relationships don’t. This major question doesn’t have a quick-fix solution and I imagine will be debated for many years to come.”
That, to me, encapsulates the reasons why the Anglican Communion is breaking apart. The Archbishop of Canterbury can’t even bring himself to insist that ordained clergy obey the Word of God. He seems willing to accept endless debate about an issue on which, as he admits, the Bible gives clear teaching.
Oi, indeed.
The full report on the interview is found on pages 4 and 5 of this pdf document.
h/t: Ruth Gledhill
In the words of the Late Great Andre the Giant. ‘I don;t think those words mean what you think they mean’. I think what ABC is saying here is that it is the bounden duty of all clergy to adhere to the bible, and for homosexually oriented clergy that means living a celibate life. I was actually encouraged by this quote.
Kevin
Yeah, I agree with Kevin here. He’s saying that clergy do in fact “have to adhere to the Bible.” and tactfully noting the fact that some people inexplicably seem to have a problem with that fact. Remember, too, that he’s being interviewed here by a bunch of high-school students. How do you think he could have said this better?
And I agree with Ruth Gledhill that Rowan Williams is a master of bafflegab. Is bafflegabbery taught in Anglican seminaries? In my relatively short exposure to Anglicanism, I have been amazed at the consistent verbosity shown by senior Anglican clergy - even when they are addressing the common man. I would far rather try to interpret the minor prophets than try to plough through the latest missive from a bishop.
If I was a high school student reading this, I would interpret him to mean that gay clergy who are sexually active are not following the Bible.
Now, he immediately talks about how there are serious questions involved and we need discussion, sure… he covers his bases. But, it seems that he just might be suggesting that active homosexual behaviour isn’t appropriate for clergy.
I don’t get you guys!?! You say you want ++Rowan to say something, then he does (which is favourable to the Network position), and you condemn it? You guys deserve your own church since you like to retreat from real issues and focus on your own self-serving one…namely your “war” against homosexuality. Please open your eyes and see that God is much bigger than this and his mercy is more gracious than you claim.
Perhaps in my efforts to be brief, I risked misunderstanding. Yes, I think it’s good that +Rowan accepts the biblical teaching that two persons of the same sex are not to engage in sexual activity. As he said in August 2006, homosexuals must change their behaviour if they wish to be fully included in the church. So, +Rowan’s view on that is not news.
Of course, I, too, am encouraged that he is willing to repeat that view. I am, however, discouraged by his unwillingness to call upon clergy to act accordingly. Ordained clergy who make a habit of not adhering to the Bible are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
So, what I was criticising is his apparent willingness to “debate” clear biblical teaching, rather than insisting that God and the church expect such teaching to be taught and obeyed. This is, after all, a matter of eternal consequence. Clergy (and all persons) who persistently disobey God’s moral teaching endanger their souls.
To me, it’s about the same as if he had said this:
That’s just not good enough from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Please open your eyes and see that God is much bigger than this and his mercy is more gracious than you claim.
Ah, but what is mercy? Is it mercy for God to look upon me, and my temptation toward [insert your favourite of the seven deadlies here], and say, “I have mercy and accept you just the way you are, and you don’t have to change”, or is it mercy for Him to say “I have mercy, and I welcome you into the fold just the way you are, but I expect you to grow in holiness, and I will help you to do just that”?
Warren: You made me laugh! To be fair, I see that same tendency in anybody with a Masters or Doctorate in the arts and sciences, it’s not just clergy….
Mark, you are doubtlessly correct when you say that God’s mercy is more gracious than “we” claim. I would posit that His holiness and justice are also beyond our comprehension.
Mrs. Falstaff, as an engineer, I have worked with many people with a Masters or Doctorate degree in science or engineering. I don’t recall any of them talking (or writing) like many bishops are prone to do.
Hey, I’ve got a M.Sc. in Meteorology and most of the time people understand what I mean
Well, OK, I think they do, either that or they’re just trying to humour me .
Scott, it would indeed be ridiculous if he said such a thing, so I can see your point. To me, as I said, this is something that shouldn’t even be up for debate: nobody, after all, would allow a seminarian who was in a “practising relationship” with someone other than his wife to be ordained. I think that the archbishop, like any good scholar, is simply acknowledging that there has been some debate around the issue.
Dear Scot,
Just come clean and admit you read it and posted it in haste. That’s fine we all do it, I am not buying your misunderstanding line. It will give you great credibility if you admit you were wrong.
Kevin,
That seems a strange stance to take, given that you and I agree on the interpretation of the first three of +Rowan’s sentences quoted in the post. We would appear, therefore, to disagree on the significance of only the fourth, and you haven’t yet offered your take on that.
(Also, when I wrote in comment #6, “Perhaps in my efforts to be brief, I risked misunderstanding”, I was referring to the risk that readers might misunderstand my perspective. Another instance of the perils of communicating through the written word rather than personal conversation.)
Scott
Warren - did I say arts and sciences? I should have just said arts…
Mrs Falstaff,
You’re spot on. I have an MA in Economics, and my problems making myself understood are apparently worse than I had realised.
Come on. Just admit it.
Kevin,
Do you not think it rather serious to accuse someone of dissembling, especially when based simply on your suppositions and conjectures? “I’m not buying it” does not qualify as a persuasive argument. Unless you have some actual evidence to offer, I suggest you accept that we disagree.
Also, you still have not explained exactly where you disagree with me.
#15 - Don’t know if you meant to make us snicker, Scott - but I did!
Thanks, Mrs Falstaff. Yes, that was offered with some irony.
I do hope you realize that my comments about upper level arts degree holders not being able to communicate very well were tongue in cheek - one never knows how that sort of thing comes across in writing.
I figured that was the case. No problem. (Although I must admit there is some truth in what you said.)
I’ve a friend who completed either a Masters or PHd in chemistry (I forget which) and he was continually frustrated by the fact that he wrote clearly, and his professor wanted more buzz words. Yes, this is getting off topic, I will cease and desist now.
Dear Scot,
I am not saying we disagree. But it is clear to me and the 6 first commenters that you misread the ABC’s statement when you posted, and have been trying to correct that ever since. Just admit it and we will all be happy.
Kevin, I was one of the first six commenters and I never said (or inferred) that Scott misread the ABC’s statement. Perhaps I too have caught the bafflegab bug and can no longer make myself understood.
My point notwithstanding.