|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion At the heart of the controversyAn interview with William Taylor, Minister of St. Helen's Bishopsgate, LondonWilliam Taylor is the Minister of St. Helen's Bishopsgate in the City of London, where Dick Lucas preached before his retirement. William has been outspoken in his opposition to the appointment of Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury. In this frank interview with EN, he explains why... EN: What are the problems with Rowan Williams becoming the next Archbishop of Canterbury?WT: The real issue at the heart of the controversy over Dr. Williams's appointment is not a new one. It has to do with the authority of Scripture, and the clarity with which God speaks in Scripture. Dr. Williams describes the Bible as 'the touchstone of the Christian faith'. However, in his writings he regularly insists that God is essentially silent and that God's voice is distant and hard to hear. Dr. Williams tells us that the writers of the New Testament only tell us what they believe God to have been saying through Jesus. Thus, if we wish to hear the voice of Christ today we need to listen both to the Bible and to what Dr. Williams calls 'Christian humanity'. Wherever we find a community that shows evidence of the fruit of the Spirit we should listen to what God has to say to us through them. This explains how he comes to the widely-reported position that he holds on sexuality. In conversation with him he told me that he sees much of the fruit of the Spirit in the gay community - love, joy, patience, kindness - so, he would say, we need to listen to this community to see what they have to say to us about sexuality today. And, he added, having listened to the gay community, we can go back to the Bible and find faint hints - suggestions, even - that in some cases same sex sexual relations are permissible. This is an altogether disastrous way to do our theological thinking. Scripture is no longer authoritative. God's voice is not to be heard clearly in the Bible. Dr. Williams' views are summarised in an excellent book by Garry Williams [Ed: see details at the end of Anglican Update, p.17]. EN: How deep is the crisis?WT: It is extremely deep. For the Church of England is founded on the authority of Scripture. In all its historical, legal and theological documents, Scripture is placed as the foundation of the denomination. In the 39 Articles of the Church of England, Article 19 states that the true church is founded on the 'pure word of God'. Article 20 states that the Church 'cannot order anything contrary to God's written word ƒ Nor teach one part of Scripture against another.' And Canon A5 reads: 'the doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures ...' We now have an Archbishop who will not recognise the authority of Scripture in all matters. He has taught publicly that what the Bible says is wrong for Christian people is right. He will not renounce his public teaching or repent of his previous actions: we therefore have a huge problem. When he is appointed as Archbishop he will assume overall leadership of a vast denomination of Christians from all over the world. Vast numbers of the Christians from overseas still hold Scripture as the ultimate authority in all matters of faith and conduct. His appointment, and the views of the many American and English Bishops who think the way he does, threatens to destroy the World Wide Anglican Communion. EN: Dr. Williams has said he wants to make a distinction between his ideas as a private individual and his public stance as Archbishop. What do you think of that? WT: When a leader is ordained in the Church of England he promises a number of things. He promises that he believes the doctrine of the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it, and he promises that he will expound and teach it. He also promises to uphold truth against error. And he is called upon to be merciful, but with firmness; and to minister discipline, but with mercy. Dr. Williams says that he will act 'in role' as Archbishop and not push his private theological views. However, his private views are public! He has written and spoken extensively on these matters. When I spoke to him I asked him whether he would renounce his private views. I asked him whether he would make a public statement that practising homosexual sexual relationships were wrong. And I asked him whether he would call those in such relationships to repent. His answer to each of those questions was: no! Inevitably, then, he cannot carry out his public role as Archbishop. He cannot make promises to uphold the truth against error without self-evident hypocrisy. He cannot and will not act to uphold the discipline of the Church. He does not believe the doctrine of the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it. Nor can he, or will he, expound and teach that doctrine faithfully. EN: In response to the coming appointment of Dr. Williams, yourself and other staff at St. Helen's have taken certain practical steps concerning your employment. Could you explain what those steps are, and what you hope they will achieve? To whom are you accountable within the Church? WT: The Clergy in the Church of England are paid by the Church Commissioners. A central body who administers the funds of the denomination. The money to pay the clergy is collected from the parishes by the dioceses across England. The dioceses then pay the money to the Church Commissioners and the Church Commissioners then pay the clergy. It is really a huge circle with lots of administration involved. The clergy at St. Helen's have simply short-circuited the system. Back in July I said to the Church Wardens at St. Helen's that from the appointment of Dr. Williams we would refuse to draw a stipend from the Church Commissioners. Thus if they wished to continue to have us working at St Helen's the Church Family would need to pay us direct. The aim of doing this was two-fold. First, to give the Church Wardens the opportunity to choose whether or not to have us continue working at St. Helen's as we made a public stand against the new Archbishop. Secondly, to make a public, symbolic protest against the new Archbishop's appointment. It also encourages churches to take control of their own finances. The financial situation between us and the Diocese of London will not change. Nor do we change our relationship with the Bishop of London under whose authority we operate. However, this is what I like to call a local, symbolic, first step of protest against the appointment. EN: Do you think Dr. Williams should not be appointed? If he is appointed, ought there to be an ongoing call for him to step down?WT: I do not think Dr. Williams should have been appointed. There certainly needs to be an ongoing campaign to prevent the views he has on Scripture, and on the issues of sexuality that he has written about, from spreading. I would hope to see large numbers of individual clergy taking significant and bold steps in protest at the Dr. Williams's appointment. I also hope that we shall soon hear a strong voice of protest from overseas. EN: In a recent EN article, Jim Packer explained that many gay activists within the church have a different approach to interpreting Scripture from evangelicals. We argue on different presuppositions. If that is the case, how is it possible to win the argument, and be seen to win the argument? WT: As you can imagine, following the sermon I preached concerning the appointment of Dr. Williams on October 13 (which is now on the St. Helen's website) we have had literally hundreds of responses from all around the world. Probably just one in ten of these are negative. Of the negative responses only one or two have addressed the theological issues raised. The vast majority of those who wrote negatively work on two premises. First, that the only place to find true fulfilment is within an active sexual relationship. Secondly, that the New Testament teaching on sexuality is bound by cultural issues of the day. They compare Paul's teaching on sexuality to his teaching on head-covering, slavery and so on. In responding to all the negative responses from the gay lobby I have sought to do two things. First to show that single people in our congregation, both those who have homosexual and heterosexual desires, find it enormously offensive to hear them arguing that the only way a person can be truly fulfilled is through an active sexual relationship. Secondly, I have gently, patiently, and carefully sought to take the argument back to the Bible, and specifically back to the issues of Genesis 1.27 and 2.24. The teaching of Jesus and Paul in Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5 keeps going back to the pre-Fall Creation Ordinances of marriage. These passages are true for all people at all times and cannot be culturally bound. I have also pointed the more serious correspondents to Robert Gagnon's excellent new book: The Bible and Homosexual Practice. EN: The finances of the Church of England are very weak at present. Do you think it is ethical for Anglican evangelicals to use their financial muscle in taking their stand? WT: When Christians give money they expect it to go to support gospel work. I personally do not think it is ethical to send money given sacrificially by Christians for mission to support works where the gospel is not being taught. Nor is it ethical to use Christian money to support so-called Christian leaders who will not repent of teaching doctrine and living lifestyles that are not Christian. EN: If conservative evangelicals did manage to dethrone Rowan Williams, there would inevitably be a backlash from the secular press and others calling you 'reactionary', 'unloving', etc. Have you thought about how to handle that? WT: Careful reading of Dr. Williams's teaching shows him to be what the New Testament would call a 'false teacher'. Sadly, therefore, those who selected Dr. Williams have placed both us and him in an extremely difficult position. We need to extend a loving hand to him, but at the same time we are duty bound to point him back to the theological, legal and historical foundations of the Church of England. If he will not renounce his false teaching and repent of his actions, then, regretfully, we need to distance ourselves from him. EN: A contemporary secular government has always been likely to look for someone like Rowan Williams to become Archbishop of Canterbury. Isn't his appointment simply indicative of a problem with the idea of having an established Church? WT: No! An Established Church, if it is operating properly, has an immense opportunity to present the gospel to the nation. The theological, historical and legal foundations of the Church of England insist that its leaders be godly men who teach the Scriptures. The situation we are in is not a problem of establishment in itself, but rather of the selectors not recognising the difficulties they would introduce through such an appointment. If the Church of England were working correctly, it would be a powerful and much needed voice for God in our land. EN: How can free church people best help?WT: It is most important to pray. Pray that Dr. Williams will repent. Pray that if not, he will resign. Pray for real courage from Anglican leaders across the country to put significant distance between themselves and this false teacher. We have received dozens of letters and emails from free church people assuring us of their support and intercession, and we are very glad of this. John Benton© Evangelicals Now - December 2002 |
|
