Did no one tell him he was supposed to be leading the show, not looking on bemused from the sidelines?
Of course, to a degree, except that if he were to say ‘everyone has to be open to the gays now’, half the church would probably just up and leave, probably to go off and form some even worse reactionary bigoted Christian group of their own, which would be a disaster.
Change in the CofE takes place at a snail’s pace. I do, for what it’s worth, think that Rowan is on our side, for the most part – he just takes everything at a pace that the church can understand… so err… nothing ever seems to change. Which is frustrating for everyone.
And as a result the cult of England is finally breathing its last.
The cult of England is a complete irrelevancy in the year 2012.
If half of the church would please get off it’s arse and walk, that would actually be problem solved. It’s like watching some horrendous marriage where the partners refuse to split no matter what, and you just hope they will, finally, realise that divorce is actually something good. Traditionalists / fundamentalists and moderate / liberals, really cannot live together as one flesh.
Probably more than half of the church to be fair!
Yes and if the church was to formally split then the government would have no choice but to separate church and state.
The problem is that neither the evangelicals nor the anglo-catholics want to be the party that leaves, as any congregations that leave will be at a large disadvantage. They’ll no longer have access to the church’s endowments, and they won’t have any right to use church buildings. In general, the evangelical churches could probably afford to absorb that loss, while the anglo-catholic wing probably couldn’t.
A major split would likely result in disestablishment which few parties want, least of all the evangelicals. The liberal centre of the church would suffer if either the evangelicals or the anglo-catholics left, as it would tip the balance of what remains a long way in the other way. If, for example, the homophobic evangelists leave, the church will become much more misogynistc, the liklihood of women bishops will be hugely diminished, and there may well be a backlash against women priests.
Piss on the pot or get off, you cowardly old fart.
Abso-bloody-lutely – He has been part of it for long enough and NOW he says this?! What a swine and a hypocrite he is.
The behaviour of his church, in whipping up the mob, has made life less safe and less comfortable and less peaceful for LGBT people. HE is the leader, he has this on his shoulders now matter how hard the odious craven tries to squirm now.
This is the guy who claimed to be on our side but once he became Archbishop sided with the bigots and turned against us. A real disappointment and one I’m glad to see the back of. Although God only knows what we’ll get next!
It doesn’t matter who is the next leader.
The cult of England is close to death.
We just need to finish it off and then insist on its removal of the official cult of this country
Don’t you believe it.
They won’t go out without a fight, and even if/when they do we will still have the Catholics/Muslims/Jews and every other God-botherer in creation bemoaning how they were persecuted and that civilised society is crumbling into a pit of sodomy and filth.
It isn’t a cult!
The only difference between the CoE and a cult is the scale of bloodshed and tyranny that they have caused. The assumption that antiquity offers credibility is fallacious.
He’s all over the place. One minute he’s telling us that same sex marriage threatens the church, the next he expressing faux anguish at other people’s homophobia. He is more of an irrelevance than his church – and that takes some doing, so hats off to him for that only.
It’s great fun watching the anglican cult rip itself to shreds from the inside.
That can only be good news for the entire country.
I suspect he’s feeling the heat from within, from those who support us in the Anglican community. He doesn’t want to leave his post going down as the bigot of all bigots like his colleague Lord Carey who has never been able to overcome the fact that he’s no longer the head of the state cult. Loss of power is always an issue these morons can never accept and we’re seeing it with their desperate, scurrilous rants and lies about equal marriage. Well, Rowan Williams, too little too late. You’ve confined Anglicanism to the dustbin of history and the numbers of your followers are dwindling by the day.
Williams is not a bigot like Carey.
Williams is a pathetic, miserable little coward whose ineffectiveness just shows how utterly irrelevant his pathetic cult is.
It is an utter disgrace that in the year 2012 Britain still does not have separation of church and state.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is part of the problem.
Church untiy means more to him than equality. Then again that is his job – he is the head of the business after all (the cult of England is a big business.)
He also seems to be suffering from delusions if he thinksthat civil marriage equality has anything to do with the Cult of England.
Enjoy your retirement Williams – you won’t be missed.
I hope you enjoy watching the Anglican cult die, from your sideline.
If the C of E dies or is disestablished, we can probably expect a rise in charismatic dominionist megachurches, and stories such as this one ( congregation 30,000+ ) , where the pastor, his deputy, and others have just been charged and face a possible 20 years in jail over $23 million in church funds that was allegedly used to finance the secular music career of the pastor’s wife.
With all his faults I much prefer our present Archbish, who clearly has no ambition to own a private jet, homes in California, to launch his wife into a pop career, or generally take over the world. That is what we will have if we do away with our traditional British restraint in matters of religion.
Er – correct me if I am wrong …
But wasn’t it the official response of the CoE (that the AoC has strategic leadership of) to the government consultation on equal marriage that “sends out a message of unwelcome, of lack of understanding, of lack of patience” to LGBT people?
Perhaps the AoC ought to practice what he preaches – he appears two-faced in these comments!
He’s a christian cultist.
Of coursre he is 2 faced.
He could have stepped in at any time, or spoken private with the bishops the moment plans were announced (back in September 2011, by the Home Office, or before), to ask them to approach the subject sensitively and with respect, but instead he sides with the traditionalists until the consultation is over, then pretends he’s sorry bishops have been going around trying to duff up the gay community. Brilliant strategy, although somewhat transparent.
Cowardly strategy if you ask me!
quite right Stu:
at the very least he must have approved the statement sent out by the CofE. I think he wants to please everyone and ends up pleasing no-one. He really isn’t very skilled at politics and building consensus. However, I have to say I find it hard to dislike him in the way I do his probable replacement.
He says there is a struggle between traditionalists and progressives – but the traditionalists clearly won, you only have to read their horrendously homophobic submission to the consultation. Perhaps he cannot control the other bishops. In any case, since it’s been submitted, it’s useless to come out now and say there should be caring and tolerance, he should have said that to them before they issued their first statements. Ironically he should be signing that petitions “not in my name!”. Damage is done, to us by demeaning statements and slurs, but the greater damage has been done to the church, by the church.
Can anyone please clarify exactly what he is says?
Was there a point or did he just open his mouth and vacuous words escaped?
I think you mean … better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt :)
How can you expect anyone to clarify what he says when even he has no clear idea. He jumps over fences better than an Olympic hurdler.
Once again the National Secular Society has hit the nail on the head and those posters to this list who protest at the Archbishop of Cant and his Church should seriouly consider helping the NSS promote Secularism which is fair to all.
I agree, George. Join us, all!
I am a gay Christian but believe in a secular state – can you accommodate me?
Of course. Christians can join the NSS – we don’t discriminate against anyone.
People of all religions and none equally welcome.
Can someone tell this tramp that his own messages have just as disgusting and unwelcome. He doesn’t understand love and clearly never will. I can’t help thinking in order to be given the right to marry people one much appreciate what love truly is and that it isn’t separated by orientation.
Fact his own ideals of ‘religious freedoms’ not only discriminate against our community but many in his own and in other religions who wish to be progressive and perform marriage equally.
Someone ought to tell the Arch Hypocrite of Cantebury that his refusal to support the appointment of gay bishops places him firmly on the side of homophobes and bigots.
It’s true that in accommodating such homophobia, he validates it in the minds of many, especially in Africa, where their homophobia needs to be challenged vigorously.
I have a huge deal of sympathy with the Archbishop who has tried very hard to hold together the world Anglican Communion and lead his domestic synod towards acceptance of women bishops and gay priests. Not all of this workis visible, and like St Peter he has on occasion denied his belief in order to survive. But compared with who will succeed him, we will look back and realise what a decent man he has been and more worthy of those he leads thn they of him. His talk at this conference, quoted only in sound bites, shows his witty and human engagement. There are those like dAVID who cannot stand the church and state link or indeed Christianity and all its works. I myself am an atheist but I respect the Christian values of the bulk of genuine Christians, amongst whom I do not number the Westboro’ Baptist Church and other bodies who preach bigotry relying a good deal more on the Old Testament than the words the Gospels ascribe to Jesus himself.
You do accept that it is an utter travesty that the cult of England is the ‘official’ cult in this country, and that this situation is blatantly undemocratic?
And do you also accept that the Westboro baptist cult is as christian as the cult of England, seeing as they use the EXACT same book as the anglicans.
Who decided that the anglican (or catholic, or quaker, or WBC) version of christianity is the correct one?
There are different interpretations of the BuyBul, and no-one can claim that any 1 interpretation is more valid than another.
(They are all bull of course – the BuyBull is a work of fiction after all)
You seem to me to be a very wet atheist. Does your respect for the Christian Churches exend to the Roman Catholic one which is just as homohpobic as the Westboro’ Baptist one?
I think you need to discern the difference between a faith and a religion.
Breath of fresh air – first balanced and un-hysterical comment on this thread so far …
Why do you say hysterical? People quite rightly feel strongly about this. Most religions are fiercely opposing equality. Don’t be such a wet-bag.
He is the leader of an organisation that has publically responded to a government consultation on equal marriage in a manner that includes mistruths, lies and deception.
Is it then any surprise that the LGBT public (and others) then regard that organisation (and his leadership) as homophobic, unwelcoming, prejudiced, arrogant, inhumane, unChristian and bigoted?
When will Williams realise he can not be all things to all people.
He can not criticise people who attack LGBT people when a consultation is submitted in his name which (at best) is pejorative towards gay rights and which is rightly seen by many to be full of lies and deceptions (that arguably he is implicitly involved with).
He either supports LGBT equality or he doesn’t. If he does, he doesnt need to talk in vague and ephemeral terms about reaching a conclusion – he needs to find some moral courage and distance himself formally and publically from the CoE submission and in particular the outright lies within it.
I get the feeling he wants to support LGBT rights – but has not got the courage of his convictions.
“A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus. ”
Martin Luther King
It is probably just as well that he is stepping down, he appears to be talking some kind of gobbledygook again!
Keyword in this post is ‘again’! I’ve frequently listened to him prattle on and not known what he’s actually trying to say.
The churches are dying and emptying! Get used to it Bishop!
Interesting timing from Williams in light of the justifiable accusation from the NSS and Dr Ronan McCrea that the cofe are presenting an ‘obstruction to democracy’ by overplaying its hand in legislation relating to civil marriage. Not to mention the fact that there are growing voices of discontent within the church from those who do not support the church stance on equal marriage.
The response from the NSS also debunks the specious argument that there is only one form of marriage
Let Christians be as confused and head scratching as they want, it has nothing to do with how the state supplies its services to all.
No one is going to force the C/E or any other church to conduct ceremonies they do not want.
Beyond that it has nothing to do with them, and yes believing that you have to obey the tenets set down by a people thousands of years ago is wierd, very wierd, but thats your right, leave everyone else alone.
Usually it’s retired bishops who begin to talk honestly, but this time it’s a bishop with 6 months to go.
Best thing about the gay movement making gay marriage the issue is that it shifts the focus from sex to love. Conservatives keep dragging it back to sex, vamping up the negative feelings that are so destructive all round.
The Christian cult is entrenched in 2000 year old dogma and superstition, indeed it is their raison d’etre, so Dr Williams is a fool if he thinks he can change his church from within.
He’s a good man, but in trying to please everyone, has displeased everyone.
I’m sure he knows the arguments against equal marriage don’t hold water.
I think he has been to keen not to lose the african and Asian contingents, and has allowed this to interfere with the running of the home church, in which a majority support equality.
He is NOT a good man.
At best he is weak, ineffectual and irrelevant.
He has allowed the vile bigots within his cult to spread their toxic christian hatred against our community.
Do us all a favour, and shut up! I am fed up, with you bashing ALL christians!
I agree with dAVID almost always, so he wouldn’t be doing us all a favour if he did as you request.
To be frank, I think Stephen Gray ought have a look at what he has written and have another go. I don’t think I have ever read anything so garbled and hard to understand. So go on Stevie boy…have another go and save us all a lot of brain work trying to work out what the old queen said…
Isn’t that how it always is when Williams speaks?
He`s leaving soon-and I expect to see a different attitude from him when he is no longer head of the CoE.
He will be able to say what he REALLY thinks then-but his successor will still be tied by the traditionalists-and if its Semtanu……….Doesn`t bear thinking of…..
He really needs to stay out of public life when he retires.
If he decides to be less hateful once retired he’ll only be proving what an amoral opportunistic scumbag he was while he was archbishop.
He’ll be made a Lord like all this predecessors which means he’d have even less to loose!
If his church wasn’t opposed to marriage equality then he wouldn’t need to feel frustrated and ashamed at his flock being homophobic. What a two-faced, horrible man.
The only thing that will shake the Anglican cult to its foundation is for the American branch, the Episcopalians to finally sever all ties with Canterbury. The Episcopalians have a lot of wealth and are the primary benefactors for foreign missions. Canterbury relies on that foreign aid and without it would find itself in deep trouble. Let’s hope it happens.
the episcopalians in the usa surely have huge disagreements within their community. their problems are not too dissimilar to those of the anglicans here. the huge overriding difference between these two groups is that in america the first amendment of the united states constitution clearly establishes the separation of church and state. and that’s a biggie!
Love this commentary on the hypocrisy of the Archbishop by Nick Cohen:
“I realised that beards and soft words do not a liberal make when the Archbishop of Canterbury toured the Sudan in 2006. His visit coincided with the first genocide of the 21st century: the massacres in Darfur. The forces of the Arab-supremacist government in Khartoum were fighting a war to the knife with black Africans that left hundreds of thousands dead. The slaughter might not have been happening as far as Rowan Williams was concerned. He was the regime’s guest and refused to bear witness to the suffering or criticise its perpetrators.
I thought at the time that among the reasons why I could not believe in God was the shabbiness of his representatives on Earth. The archbishop’s officials explained that he did not wish to be undiplomatic, but I did not wholly believe them either. Williams seemed just the type to believe that crimes against humanity were colour-coded. One should denounce atrocities committed by
the west, of course, but stay silent when the criminals had black or brown skins for fear of being thought a cultural imperialist or neocolonialist.
Now that Williams and his fellow bishops are so angry at the possibility of civil gay marriage they are talking of disestablishing the church, we should acknowledge that Williams has always been prepared to accommodate reactionary forces abroad to further reactionary ends at home.
Those who knew him when he was young are shocked. He was once liberal on the question of whether Anglicans should tolerate gay and lesbian love and openly homosexual priests. As the church has had closet cases for two millenniums, who have lied to themselves, their congregations and, on occasion, to the poor women they manoeuvred into loveless marriages, I would have thought that honesty would have been the best argument for equality. But as we have seen, honesty is not a virtue the archbishop treasures.
Instead, Williams developed an eccentric but, I happily
admit, touching line of thought. He took a scene in Paul Scott’s Raj Quartet in which Sarah Layton, a respectable daughter of the regiment, is seduced by a worthless man. Williams told members of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement in 1989: “There may be little love, even little generosity, in Clark’s bedding of Sarah, but Sarah has discovered that her body can be the cause of happiness to her and to another. It is this discovery which most clearly shows why we might want to talk about grace here. Grace, for the Christian believer, is a transformation that depends in large part on knowing yourself to be seen in a certain way: as significant, as wanted.”
Like Sarah Layton, gays and lesbians also deserved the body’s grace. Even in the Bible, “there is a good deal to steer us away from assuming that reproductive sex is a norm”. His words read as well today as they did then, but Williams has forgotten what he once knew.
His conversion came when traditionalists rounded on him for
allowing Dr Jeffrey John, a gay dean in a celibate relationship with another priest, to become Bishop of Reading. Conservative Anglicans turned to the poor world to find believers who could make Williams back down. Giles Fraser, who bravely in my view resigned from St Paul’s because he could not accept the church’s decision to clear the Occupy protesters camping by the cathedral, told me he has never forgotten the hypocrisy of the moment. In 2003, religious conservatives who had never been out of Britain flew to Africa to recruit reserve armies of reactionaries from the Anglican communion. “Until then we had rarely thought about the Anglican communion,” Fraser said. “There was just a collection box at the back of the church for Christians abroad.” He soon realised that a new force had arrived in church politics. From then on, the Church of England could not settle its own affairs according to its conscience. It had to consult an “Anglican communion” that tolerated the unconscionable.
The African bishops played on Williams’s white man’s guilt. Decent treatment for homosexuals was an imperialist assertion of western values, they implied. Williams folded and forced John, who was once his friend, to stand down. He admitted that among his motives was his desire to appease the “resentment toward the United States and England in some former colonial areas”.
The fault of anti-imperialist politics in either its left or liberal forms is its inability to see distinctions among the formerly colonised. Williams’s retreat has mollified the Ugandan Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi, who says: “Homosexuality is evil, abnormal and unnatural as per the Bible.” Williams has kept him on board. Held the Anglican communion together.
But how can Anglicans oppose the Ugandan government’s attempts to mandate death sentences or life sentences for homosexuals? Can Anglicans expect anyone to believe them when they say there is no connection between theological justifications for homophobia and
the terror the Ugandan state and the Ugandan Anglican church wish to direct against homosexuals?
The language of “communion” and “engagement” sounds kind and woozy. There is nothing kind about the prison cells that await gay men in Kampala – nor grace behind their bars.
As with gays, so with women. Anglicans in 42 of the 44 dioceses of the Church of England say they want women bishops. They have offered the services of outside male bishops to the minority of parishes who cannot accept a woman in authority. The generous concession was not enough. So Williams cut a deal with the misogynists. He proposes that not only can they have male bishops, but male bishops who have not been ordained by a woman, or ordained a woman themselves or even taken communion from a woman. (Williams will have to appoint bishops who were born to a sinful woman, but one suspects that if he could find men without mothers he would take them.)
The church’s complaint that civil gay marriage may, despite the
government’s assurances to the contrary, lead to the European Court of Human Rights forcing it to marry homosexuals at some unspecified point struck me as fanciful and neurotic. But when church sources tried to scare the government into submission by raising the prospect of disestablishment, they spoke truer than they knew. England accepts the emancipation of women. England is on it way to accepting the emancipation of homosexuals. The Church of England cannot stand against the settled will of England and expect to remain the national church.”
The hypocrisy of Williams in Sudan is as equal as his hypocrisy with LGBT issues. If he was a leader – he would lead. He never has and the extremists have enabled a culture to emerge that is inhumane and tolerates lies in official church submissions to government consultations.
that is a a brilliant post. Thank you so much for your time in laying out your critique.
Even before the Government’s consultation on equal civil marriage rights for same-sex couples gets properly launched cardinals and archbishops from all over the country have been lining up to condemn it.
On March 10 a letter written by the Roman Catholic archbishops of Westminster and Southwark was read out in all Catholic churches telling the faithful that allowing gay couples to wed would threaten the institution of marriage.
This followed on from the statement of the Scottish cardinal, Keith O’Brien, that the idea of gay marriage is ‘grotesque’ and would shame the UK if it were introduced.
He seemed unaware of the offensiveness of his remarks to those many countries and states which already have gay marriage and have presumably been ‘shamed’.
The biggest threat to marriage is actually the behaviour of heterosexuals who are choosing more and more not to marry and if they do marry get divorced later. Almost one in two marriages
now goes down this road.
The Catholic ideal of
celibacy before marriage and lifelong fidelity within it describes the life pattern of very few heterosexual people today.
From a Catholic point of view it is this wholesale heterosexual abandonment of lifelong marital commitment which is shameful, and yet the archbishops say not a word about it.
It does seem truly perverse that these archbishops focus their whole attack on people who actually want to live out the marital ideal and support the institution of marriage, but who just happen to be homosexual.
Anglican archbishops have also been outspoken.
George Carey, who used to be Archbishop of Canterbury, made a speech in which he said that opening up civil marriage to gay couples would be ‘an act of cultural and theological vandalism’, ‘a political power grab’, and ‘a hostile strike’ led by homosexual pressure groups set on destroying the meaning of marriage.
The irony of these things being said by a former head of the Church of England, which was created for the sole purpose
of redefining marriage for Henry VIII and institutionalising a ‘power grab’ from Roman Catholicism seems completely to have escaped Carey.
Presumably the pope at the time must also have felt he had been subject to ‘a hostile strike’ amounting to ‘an act of cultural and theological vandalism’.
And then there is John Sentamu, the current Archbishop of York.
He said the Government had no right to overturn centuries of tradition and the Bible and that it was not the role of the state to alter social structures which had been in place for centuries.
Sentamu needs to read his Bible again.
The Bible is full of men with multiple wives and many concubines, men having sexual relations with their relatives, men engaging in forcible sexual conquest and all apparently approved by God.
As Peter Tatchell pointed out, if the state had not altered social structures which had been in place for centuries then Sentamu, as a black man, would never have been able to become Archbishop of York.
Bizarrely Sentamu then went on to claim that David Cameron was acting as a dictator – ‘We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts’, he said. Have we?
I have never heard of a dictator forcing gay marriage on a society.
What dictators usually do is persecute, torture and execute gay people, just as is happening at this very moment in Sentamu’s own country, Uganda.
What will actually happen if gay marriage is made legal?
Gay people will get married. That is all.
The sky will not fall in, the world will not end, life will go on.
If anything, the institution of marriage will be strengthened because thousands more couples will commit to its support and maintenance. In this sense it is arguably surprising that these church leaders are not welcoming gay marriage.
The whole purpose of marriage is to celebrate and sustain the union of a two people who love and cherish each other.
Right back in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, we read: And the Lord God said, It is not
good that the man should be alone; I will make him and help meet for him We are not told that God made Eve for procreation but only for companionship.
Childbirth is not even mentioned until chapter three of Genesis and then only as an afterthought.
There is a fundamental hypocrisy in those churches which claim to be opposed to gay marriage on the grounds that two people of the same sex cannot have children but who are still happy to marry the infertile, the post menopausal and the elderly, provided they are heterosexual.
Gay people experience exactly the same yearning for a life companion as the biblical Adam and the quality of their relationships is just the same. After
the many changes that have been made to marriage over the centuries the time has now surely come to include faithful, loving, gay couples within it.
If Williams supported gay people marrying and the future being an inclusive church then he would condemn Sentamu, O’Brien and the others. Mysteriously he has
remained silent despite their horrendous, vitriolic and corrosive lies and hate filled language and actions. He has refused to condemn their lies and deceptions. Indeed, he has allowed publications to be submitted in the name of the church for which he has responsibility which include lies and misinformation. I find it hard to see his comments today as anything other than attempts to seek to mollify gay people. We should not accept his words are full of any meaning until he demonstrates they do by his actions.
Give it a rest Archbishop. I can’t speak for the young audience you condescend to here, but your charm offensive and bromides leave me cold these days. I daresay I prefer the CofE’s more vocal reactionaries who at least never pretended to care about the sorts of people you double-crossed (Geoffrey John, Gene Robinson, your parishioners) and who once trusted you.
You have been seduced by your political ambitions for the church and your own personal vanity to stoop to any low in broadening the scope of your personal influence outside of England, adopting the posture of a spiritual mentor to Third World Anglicans.
I don’t know why liberals have a good word to say about the Archbishop. They are making a big fuss over John Sentamu replacing him. I don’t know why. Not so much as a cigarette paper divides them theologically.
One of the unintended consequences of the Church of England’s folly is that it unwittingly makes the case for its long overdue disestablishment.
“I’m quite conscious too of the fact that people think that I’m weird and we’re weird.”
No Sh|t, Sherlock.
Williams adopts rather typical Anglican tactics, namely not taking a firm stance on either side of an issue but coming up firmly in the middle. The danger of this is (as will undoubtedly become clear to Williams, if he has not already identified it) that you lose support from either side by trying to play both.
He is doing this now by claiming to support equality for LGBT people whilst endorsing a CoE submission to government on civil marriage equality that demonises LGBT people with lies, sophistry and deception.
He has done this previously in a number of other areas including when he stated that while he supports the ordination of homosexual bishops, he does so with the understanding that such bishops remain, or become, celibate. This is a double standard.
Williams appears to seek to endorse (both in terms of gay ordination and same sex marriage) a separate but equal mentality that is just not an ethical position at all. It didn’t work during Apartheid, it was dismissed in most
equal marriage debates internationally as lacking any morality or viability.
If we think about the issue of ordination of gay clergy (or their promotion!) first, what if the Worldwide Anglican Communion, which is based on consensus and does not utilize a top-down style of governance, were to somehow decide all clergy were to be celibate, just as their brothers in the Roman Catholic Church are required to be. While that would create one hell of a backlash and some major – and I am talking major – controversy, at least it would be an equal playing field; a field where sexual orientation just was not an issue, really. That is not the case. Here the case is one set of rules and expectations for this clergy and another set of rules and expectations for that clergy. How anyone in their right mind, let alone an individual tasked with being fair and reasonable as a mediator, could possibly see it as any sort of solution is beyond me. Well, it is a solution of sorts….for Williams. It
allows him to play both sides of the fence and not overly offend, he hoped, either side. Surprise!
In the same way, what if all marriages of heterosexuals were to be legally become civil partnerships? Again, it would create chaos.
Its unsustainable for Williams to try and please both sides, refuse to take leadership, and to move on.
He looks incredibly weak and lacks humanity when he associates himself with lies and hypocrisy.
Archbishop: Ummm, aahh, I don’t really ahh, dare – no, feel the time is right to, ah, come off the fe – no, oh, yes, – to a precipitate conclusion about any of this but, uuuhhh,, ooops, uummm, I do find it regrettable that some of, ahhh my mad coreligionists – NO!!! aargh – I mean members of my er, flock, yes, flock – are a bit, uh, uncivil about the whole, er, thing, and, ah -
Audience:(sounds of yawning, shuffling, and chairs scraping; footsteps, muttering, door opening and closing. Silence.)
Is this just irony, or should we simply call it pure hypocrisy…?????
“My Friends Think I’m Mad’
When you think an invisible person is telling you to persecute others, I’d say that constitutes madness.
But it pretty much constitutes the history of the world. How strange is that?
Oh, really! This man is just beyond the pale isn’t he?!
You know, I just don’t have the time, or the energy to listen to him anymore. He has absolutely no credibility any more.
The Archbishop, is probably the most liberal Archbishop, that the CoE has had. If you think that he is bad. Then you will be disappointed with the next!
Well luckily it shouldn’y be either York or London.
He is bad because he is vacillating and ineffective and has rolled over to the happy clappies at every turn for the sake of a fatuous and illusory ‘unity’. Roll on Sentamu. He will make disestablishment irresistible.
Better an enemy we know rather than a turncoat.
Now this is a real Christian who understands that God commanded us all to love one another, it is always good news when a real religious leader like him stands up for LGBT people. Religious leaders who support LGBT people need our help and support.
How is he supporting gay people when he allows a response to be given to the government consultation on marriage which seeks to subjugate gay people, supports preventing equality in civil rights from gay people and which lies, deceives and tells untruths?
His actions do not seem very supportive of LGBT people to me – his words are far from convincing?
If he does genuinely support LGBT people then he needs to show leadership. As a wise man once said “Leaders make decisions that create the future they desire”. Williams seems to prefer not to make decisions nor to influence but to have ephemeral discussions that do not achieve anything. He needs to be bold and to act. A ship in a harbour is in a safe place – but thats not what ships are built for. Williams needs to act and distance himself from the CoE submission or he will be known as a weak leader that failed LGBT people.
Time to lock the doors..people have spent enough money on this ponze scheme..gone on for far too long….Bishop, you are an “ass”…
I’ve always felt that the religious pretext is a smokescreen to disguise/justify a thinly-veiled physical disgust. In which case, fine! Say that. You find homosexuality disgusting and distasteful. The only problem is that that’s not a reason to prevent other people from doing it.
To paraphrase a brilliant US legistlator:
“How many more homosexuals does God have to make before you people are convinced he wants them around?”
I love it when religions can’t even reconcile the framework of the ridiculous stories they’ve concocted for themselves.
Why don’t they just jack it all in? They’re pathetic.
Make Desmond Tutu the Archbishop of Canterbury!
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool…
…than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!
As a church queen I know a turncoat when I see one.B+uger off you let us down.