The Archbishop of Canterbury has finally said it!

He would appear to have modified his previously held liberal position - although being known for his obtuseness one can never be sure exactly what he is saying at times - to that which is in line with traditional Biblical teaching. But these words certainly do look perfectly clear.

Dr Williams said: “I do not believe that sex outside marriage is as God purposes it.” And he said he remained “committed” to the Church’s official stance against gay sex, which aims to preserve Biblical norms.
Source

[A recent comment to that article has since cast a credibility shadow on the report, and unfortunately neither author provides a reference that can be followed up for context and validation. However that does not effect the rest of this journal entry.]

The Archbishop of Canterbury, who is head of the Church of England, is not the head of the Anglican Communion - not as the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church - but he is looked towards as an influential leader in all affairs Anglican. The Anglican Communion itself, the family of Anglican/Episcopal churches, consists of an estimated 80 million Christians who are members of 44 regional and national member churches (that is: 34 provinces, 4 United Churches, and 6 other churches) spread around the globe in over 160 countries. Every ten years there is a meeting of the 800+ bishops and archbishops of the Anglican Communion held in England to discuss Anglican matters. The 2008 Lambeth Conference is happening right at this moment.

Back in 2003 The Episcopal Church in the USA consecrated an actively homosexual bishop. This action, along with the subsequent blessings of gay partnerships and the ordination of unrepentant gay priests, has lead to a huge rift in the Communion. The traditionalists (such as myself) know that Scripture teaches that sex outside marriage is sin, whereas those embracing liberal theologies hold to the more secular persuasion that homosexual practice is not immoral and God does not call it sin. Although all humans are sinners, an ordained clergyman must repent of sin and strive to lead a righteous life. Probably those who hold either position will be in agreement that it should be so of an ordained clergyman, but the disagreement concerns whether or not gay sex is a sin. Given that it occurs outside marriage, and marriage is regarded as that which can occur only between a man and a woman, it is hard to argue that it is not sinful - except that it would be said we could resolve the matter by changing our laws to allow “marriage” between same sex partners. But the issue goes far deeper than societal rites and sanctions. Societal rites and sanctions have absolutely no authority nor power to change God’s moral law. The traditional and orthodox exegeses of Scripture has always taught that same-sex sex is a sin. Those who dispute this are also denying the authority of Scripture as God’s holy word.

I very much like the words of another Anglican clergyman who has written the following…

Not quite right to say Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality.

When he talked about a man being united to his wife, he meant just that. He gave his disciples two options - either to be married or to be single. I could rehearse the detailed arguments many times before, but my point is this: there are a lot of assumptions out there which are commonly held and are blithely taken as read, and we need to read what the Bible (in any version) actually says.

Of course, the next argument when I point this kind of lazy thinking out is to accuse me of homophobia, as if a phobia is a failure to accept uncritically somebody else’s behaviour. This is neither a medical or a theological correct use of the term. And indeed it is out of a deep, deep love for the other person that I point out this kind of teaching, and comparison with rabid, right-wing fundamentalists is way wide of the mark.

Jesus spoke about the need to love, but he taught more about hell and judgement than any other person in the Bible. You have to decide how to reconcile these two facts, unless you want to chop out the parts of the gospels which mention the latter, and only include the former.

Love as defined by the Bible is deeply bound with the concept of God’s holiness, and unless we recover this doctrine of holiness, we will never understand the use of this term “love”.

So often those who hold to the traditional Biblical view are labelled in a derogatory way - “homophobe” or “rabid, right-wing fundamentalist” being just two examples - but no amount of name calling has the power or authority to change God’s moral law either. This is the Apostolic Christian faith. Like it or lump it, but that’s what it is, and any challenge to that is one mounted against our Sovereign Creator, no less. I personally am not willing to take Him on, knowing already I will come out the loser. Anyone who does is far crazier than I.

And yes to the recovery of the doctrine of holiness. Jesus said that if we would love Him, we are to follow His commands. Unless our own righteousness surpasses that of the Scribes and Pharisees (who were already diligent observors of the law despite their unholy self-righteousness) we are not doing enough… hard words from our Lord.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)

I shudder to think of what Bishop Gene Robinson is doing, and those who support and push the gay agenda. The finger is pointed at him as the one who is responsible for this huge rift in the Communion, but that is really unfair. He would never have been consecrated had the heresies that have allowed it not been driven out in the first place. But they are insidious and creep like a cancerous growth to distort Christian truth, and many are fooled in their own ignorance and disobedience.

A number of the comments to the TimesOnline report show just how Biblically and theologically illiterate so many folk are, in the same manner as somebody claiming that (a + b)² is equal to a² + b². There is little understanding of God’s covenants with His people, nor knowledge of Church history, nor appreciation that God is not subject to secular cultural innovations. Where does one even start to respond? And even if I did, how soon before their unbelief and disinclination to know have them crying out those tiresome words… homophobe, rabid rightwing fundamentalist …and more?

This statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury will not suddenly heal any rift, the whole thing being far greater than that, and the Anglican Communion groans on with its struggles.