Conservative politician Ann Widdecombe questions the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Q: “is homosexuality wrong.”
A: “I am not going to answer that straightforwardly because it’s a complex question.”
He goes on to say: “my position is that the the historic position of the church is that sexual relations should be within marriage and marriage is between a man and a woman”. Of course, it’s an unarguable fact that the historic position of the church is that sexual relations should be within marriage and marriage is between a man and a woman; Welby could scarcely say his position is that that is not the church’s historic position. What Welby does not say is: “my position is the same as the the historic position of the church.” Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but I suspect not.
Admittedly, Wobbling Welby isn’t as incoherent as Rambling Rowan but he still falls very short of the kind of clarity we see from other parts of the Anglican Communion.
It’s not a complex question. It is a straightforward question, that requires a straightforward answer. Anything other than a straightforward answer is simply an attempt to avoid the issue. Basically a “let’s sit on the picket fence and hope we don’t get poked in the ass. What poor Welby does not yet understand is that fence sitting pleases no-one, but instead upsets everyone who is looking for him to provide leadership.
It’s only a complex question when you don’t want to answer the question and stand on one side or the other other on the issue. It seem to me there is a verse in Revelation when God talks about being lukewarm and his vomiting them out” (Rev.3 :16)
Is “That’s what the Pope would say” now the 40th Article?
Is not Article no 6 sufficient unto Himself,The Living WORD, for the answer sought:
“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation”
– sin, of which Holy Scripture does classify active homosexuality as such,
leadeth not to Salvation.
Quoting your article: “What Welby does not say is: “my position is the same as the the historic position of the church.” Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but I suspect not.”
Your typing is not accurate. I think that you need to carefully re-listen to what ++Justin Welby said: “My position is the historic position of the Church, which is in our Canons which says that sexual relations should be within marriage and marriage is between a man and a woman.” He clearly said that this is his position, not just that this is the position of the Church.
Yes, you’re right, that is the complete quote. I am still not as sure as you, though, that he is unequivocally saying: “My position is that sexual relations should be within marriage and marriage is between a man and a woman.” After all, he could have just said that. Rowan Williams held the church’s position publicly but, privately, believed the opposite and the way Justin Welby answered the question leaves me wondering whether he is in the same boat.
If he was unreservedly opposed to gay marriage, surely he wouldn’t be saying things like this:
And this:
And in the interview, he does say:
A complex question can have a straightforward answer – even if it’s a complex one,
Still, you may be right; time will tell, I suppose. It seems to me that, like Rowan Williams, he is trying to straddle the fence.
The principles of creation regarding the relationships of male and female cannot be altered regardless of mans beleifs to the contrary and when we pass onto the next world the concepts of a male male relationship or female female relationship cannot possibly exist because they are not nor never will be part of Gods creation.
This further emphasizes the fact that the appointment of the ABC should not in any way be subject to the approval of the civil government as governments in most countries have no interest in Scripture of maintaining Christian standards and worship only the “god of political expediency”. Tragically the ACoC and the TEC as well as some other branches of the Anglican Communion including the ABC think they cam straddle the fence. In doing so they are removing any claim to be Christian.