A line in the sand

Calvin warned Christians when faced with 'open enemies of the truth' they must be careful of 'the heat of contention'. But they must not 'appear to flatter by keeping silence'.

Many evangelicals have been silent following the announcement that Rowan Williams is to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury, a man known for his heterodox teachings with regard to basic Christian sex ethics. Others have made muted or ambiguous statements that de facto concede the principle-namely that encouraging sexual immorality is a secondary issue over which Christians are at liberty to disagree. Others have given a positive welcome.

Mark Ashton, Richard Bewes, Jonathan Fletcher, Angus Macleay, Hugh Palmer, Vaughan Roberts, William Taylor and myself (all incumbents of larger churches) sent an Open Letter to the Prime Minister that publicly opposed the appointment. This was on the grounds that regarding homosexual behaviour Rowan Williams was flying 'in the face of the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference 1998'. Tony Blair courteously replied, particularly remarking that 'his appointment has been warmly welcomed by many leading Evangelicals in the Church'.

Out of proportion?

Perhaps someone is asking: 'Have we not got this all out of proportion? Is not the Archbishop of Canterbury designate kind, caring, pastoral and orthodox in other areas?' Many have said so. But all pastors or shepherds, besides being kind and caring also have to fight the wolf (John 10.12). And wolves, we are told, can come in the form of those within the church who 'distort the truth' (Acts 20.30).

On sex in general Rowan Williams has views that are neo-liberal. He dispenses both with the 'simple traditional biblical' teaching and the 'conventional wisdom of the right-thinking, liberal-minded person of today'. He then says: 'Our main question about how we lead our sexual lives should be neither, "Am I keeping the rules?" nor "Am I being sincere and non-hurtful?" but "How much am I prepared for this to signify?"' ('Open to Judgement', pp.161-167). That is a good example of some of his theologising (and not just in the areas of moral or social ethics). He denies biblical orthodoxy; he also denies the old liberal orthodoxy; and trying to be generous to both positions, he then builds a third neo-liberal way that, whatever else it may be, is another non-biblical way.

What, then, are his views on homosexual sex in particular? He says: 'I recognise I am in the minority, so I am cautious of making this a great campaigning issue. (But) I am not convinced that a homosexual has to be celibate in every imaginable circumstance' (Interview, Anglican Media Sydney). Why does he hold this position? He answers: 'I think my own developing sense over the last 20 years has come partly from being spiritual director to people of the homosexual orientation ... I did come to a point where I could no longer say the biblical account answers all the questions we have or want to ask' (Interview, Anglican Media Melbourne).

How do we read the Bible?

So how does Rowan Williams handle the 'biblical account'. He says: 'We read neither with a kind of blind and thoughtless obedience to every word of Scripture, as if it simply represented the mind of God, nor do we read with that rather priggish sensibility that desires to look down on the authors of Scripture as benighted savages. We read with a sense of our own benighted savagery in receiving God's gift, and our solidarity with those writers of Scripture caught up in the blazing fire of God's gift who yet struggle with it, misapprehend it, and misread it' ('Open to Judgement', p.159).

The net result of all this is that Rowan Williams is now one of the intellectual leaders associated with gay apologetics in the church worldwide. While not campaigning himself, he thus lends great weight to those who are campaigning. For example, he lends his name to the biannual journal Theology and Sexuality as a member of its editorial board. In the current edition (March 2002) the first three articles are 'Men, Muscles and Zombies'; 'A Place for Porn in a Gay Spiritual Economy'; and 'Finding God in the Heart-Genital Connection: Joe Kramer's Erotic Christianity'. 'A Place for Porn' is itself utterly pornographic, while 'Finding God' is about workshops and retreats that even other gay scholars think are 'excuses for sexual orgies' (p.41).

Misleading my servants

The cameo of the church in Thyatira (Revelation 2.20) makes it quite plain that 'teaching' that 'misleads my servants into sexual immorality' is a doctrinal line in the sand. It is not a secondary matter. The good Christians of Thyatira were 'tolerating' such teaching; and the risen Christ condemned them. That is why there must be prayer either for a real change in the thinking and teaching of Rowan Williams or else for him, somehow, still not to become Archbishop.

Church-defining issue

We are, indeed, talking about a church-defining issue. It is also of great social importance. In the wider world the legitimising of homosexual sex has been a motor for the destabilising of the whole of western sexual culture. That destabilisation has led to the belief that sexual drives need unfettered expression; the systematic deconstruction of the 'married family'; abortions; sexually transmitted diseases; and single parents. The resulting outcomes, as social science is now confirming, are dire for children (especially), but also for adults and society at large. For the church to grant further legitimacy would surely be wicked. Rather the church needs to speak the truth (in love) about Christ, the gospel and his way of living.

An impossible position

The Church of England is being placed in an impossible position. Its canons require that a Bishop (or Archbishop) must 'teach and uphold sound and wholesome doctrine and ƒ banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions' (C18). But the Archbishop of Canterbury designate seems himself a source of 'erroneous and strange opinions'. For these are defined by 'the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the 39 Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal' (A5). The Ordinal, however, also imposes a duty on every Priest/Presbyter to 'drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word'. Pray for those of us who are seeking to fulfil that duty.

David Holloway is the Vicar of Jesmond Parish Church, Newcastle-on-Tyne.

David Holloway's thoughts on the new Archbishop-designate

Out of proportion?

How do we read the Bible?

Misleading my servants

Church-defining issue

An impossible position

Main Articles

Other articles