St Luke's Church Eccleshill - Articles from "The Link"

In the interests of openness and honesty, John will always try to answer any queries you throw at him...

Sex and a new Archbishop

Q. The next Archbishop of Canterbury, Rev’d Rowan Williams, has said he disagrees with the church’s traditional teaching on sex and marriage. What do you think?

A. I take the traditional Christian view on this issue. I think the bible says that the only right context for intimate sexual relationships is within marriage - not before it, nor outside it, nor with others of the same sex. In 1998 the C of E accepted “Something to Celebrate”, a report which stated this position.

An archbishop’s job is to be the front-man for the church’s views, so two groups - “Reform” and “Church Society” - asked him to state for the record that he held the C of E’s position. And he refused to do so.

I’m not a member of either “Reform” or “Church Society”: “Reform” is against the ordination of women (I’m in favour), and “Church Society” likes the old English of the Prayer Book (I like modern English). But like them both, I am an “evangelical” (which means I take the bible as the final authority on what Christians believe).

Rowan Williams’ reply said:
• he didn’t think the bible really did say what they said it said,
• he didn’t think the bible was the final authority anyway,
• he couldn’t sign up to say what he didn’t honestly believe, and
• although he had private views, he wouldn’t try to “rock the boat” or make the church change its mind.

Although I think there is some small room for debate on the first point, and I hope we’ll hear more on this, I think the bible is pretty clear on the matter. And although it’s true that non-evangelicals take different lines on the bible, I think it’s not a Christian position simply to ignore what the bible says.

Rowan’s last two points also disturb me. I agree that no-one should sign what they don’t believe. But by the same token, no-one should work for an organisation they fundamentally disagree with, and the issue of biblical authority for ethics is pretty fundamental. And although I respect his hopes in his last point, it’s not practical.

I hope Rowan Williams’ will change his mind. If he doesn’t I guess many believers will abandon the Church of England. Which is a pity, because the C of E is a lot more biblical than you might guess from this regrettable scene.

John Hartley

For further reading: a brief examination of Rowan Williams' theological ideas, written by Dr Garry Williams of Oak Hill Theological College, can be found at www.latimertrust.org (in a downloadable .pdf file).

	*St Luke's Church, Eccleshill - The Link* magazine** The Link is published monthly at 40p (Senior Citizens 35p), and we deliver free within the parish and post copies (at the reader's expense) to those who request it. Please contact us if you would like a free copy for a trial period. November 2002, Page 1.
Home Page. Index of articles. Vicar's Letters: index, Cell Values, Cell Friends, Grilled Preacher, Faithful remnant, New Archbishop, Christmas. Questions: index, Creationism, Change, Wedding Blessings, Funerals, Sex & Archbp, Yoga. In this issue: (November 2002) Vicar's letter, Wildfire, Window, small services, bussing in USA, Iraq, Jelleys. Further reading: www.latimertrust.org	In the interests of openness and honesty, John will always try to answer any queries you throw at him... Sex and a new Archbishop Q. The next Archbishop of Canterbury, Rev’d Rowan Williams, has said he disagrees with the church’s traditional teaching on sex and marriage. What do you think? A. I take the traditional Christian view on this issue. I think the bible says that the only right context for intimate sexual relationships is within marriage - not before it, nor outside it, nor with others of the same sex. In 1998 the C of E accepted “Something to Celebrate”, a report which stated this position. An archbishop’s job is to be the front-man for the church’s views, so two groups - “Reform” and “Church Society” - asked him to state for the record that he held the C of E’s position. And he refused to do so. I’m not a member of either “Reform” or “Church Society”: “Reform” is against the ordination of women (I’m in favour), and “Church Society” likes the old English of the Prayer Book (I like modern English). But like them both, I am an “evangelical” (which means I take the bible as the final authority on what Christians believe). Rowan Williams’ reply said: • he didn’t think the bible really did say what they said it said, • he didn’t think the bible was the final authority anyway, • he couldn’t sign up to say what he didn’t honestly believe, and • although he had private views, he wouldn’t try to “rock the boat” or make the church change its mind. Although I think there is some small room for debate on the first point, and I hope we’ll hear more on this, I think the bible is pretty clear on the matter. And although it’s true that non-evangelicals take different lines on the bible, I think it’s not a Christian position simply to ignore what the bible says. Rowan’s last two points also disturb me. I agree that no-one should sign what they don’t believe. But by the same token, no-one should work for an organisation they fundamentally disagree with, and the issue of biblical authority for ethics is pretty fundamental. And although I respect his hopes in his last point, it’s not practical. I hope Rowan Williams’ will change his mind. If he doesn’t I guess many believers will abandon the Church of England. Which is a pity, because the C of E is a lot more biblical than you might guess from this regrettable scene. John Hartley For further reading: a brief examination of Rowan Williams' theological ideas, written by Dr Garry Williams of Oak Hill Theological College, can be found at www.latimertrust.org (in a downloadable .pdf file).
Top of page.	This web page was last updated on 8th November 2002.