Rowan Williams: gay relationships 'comparable to marriage' (Coffee mug down alert!)

Rowan Williams believes that gay sexual relationships can “reflect the love of God” in a way that is comparable to marriage, The Times has learnt.

Gay partnerships pose the same ethical questions as those between men and women, and the key issue for Christians is that they are faithful and lifelong, he believes.

Dr Williams is known to be personally liberal on the issue but the strength of his views, revealed in private correspondence shown to The Times, will astonish his critics.

The news threatens to reopenbitter divisions over ordaining gay priests, which pushed the Anglican Communion towards a split.

As Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Williams recommitted the Anglican Communion to its orthodox position that homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture at the Lambeth Conference, which closed on Sunday.

However, in an exchange of letters with an evangelical Christian, written eight years ago when he was Archbishop of Wales, he described his belief that biblical passages criticising homosexual sex were not aimed at people who were gay by nature.

He argued that scriptural prohibitions were addressed to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety. He wrote: “I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness.” Dr Williams described his view as his “definitive conclusion” reached after 20 years of study and prayer. He drew a distinction between his own beliefs as a theologian and his position as a church leader, for which he had to take account of the traditionalist view.

But the Anglican Church is most definitely not a Christian institution.

Keep in mind that the representatives of over 70% of the Anglican Communion worldwide totally disagree with Rowan Williams (mis)interpretation on this, and just recently had their own "Global Anglican Future Conference" (GAFCON) independent of Archbishop Williams in Jerusalem--and then most of them boycotted the regular 10 year Lambeth meeting of Anglican bishops headed by Williams.

Blessedly (and yet sadly) the English Anglican Church is no longer leading the worldwide Anglican Church.

Williams has been a colossal failure as a leader, dithering around while the Communion fell apart--all because they won't obey scripture when it comes to the sins of Sodom (among other things).

I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage . . . .

Back in the bad old days, the psychological community thought homosexual attraction had its origins in a broken relationship between father and son, whereby a man committed homosexual acts in an unconscious attempt to connect with a father (albeit through surrogates) with whom he never had a relationship. Such a relationship is the very antithesis of that relationship between the Father and the Son in the Trinity and cannot be held up as an earthly reflection of the Divine.

What hath Rowan wrought?

Where do we draw the line? Two men, or two woman, how about two men and one woman, or vica versa. What about the guy who is deeply in love with his border Collie.

When you open the door to "a little deviancy" there is always some J@ck@ss that wants to knock if right off the hinges.

I have said it a thousand times. "You point any item in the sears catalog and some where in the world there is some one that either want s to have sex with it or worship it as a god"

The sad thing is that Rowan is also ignoring the classic Anglican “3 step” : 1st (& foremost) Scripture, 2nd Tradition, 3rd Reason.

Scripture: Even fair minded liberal bible scholars—who favor homosexuality—will admit that the authors of the Bible were agreed: Only sex between a man and a woman in marriage is acceptable. The same OT passages that condemn incest, bestiality, necrophilia and other nastiness, condemn homosexuality in no uncertain terms. Throw out the prohibition on homosexuality, for “faithul monogamous same-sex relationships” and you may as well allow a man to marry his sister or his dog....

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul, in his classic description of the downward spiral of idolatry in pagan society in Romans 1, used homosexual acts, amidst both men and women, to illustrate the bottom of the moral barrel. He also later listed that some of the early Christians were FORMERLY like that....but the grace of God redeemed and changed them, from those places they should not return.

Church Tradition is uniform (even across denominational lines), along with the previous Jewish tradition: Sexual relationships only within heterosexual marriage, period.

Reason: Homosexual relationships (obviously) produce no offspring—they are therefore bad for society in general, all morals aside. In a demographic of Europe which is dying off fast, you’d think Rowan would see that. They also further allow the alienation of men and women... And of course, the spread of AIDS and various other STDS can be laid at the feet of homosexual men—who tend to be as “monogamous” as they are mentally healthy—which is not much at all.

When Jesus was asked about marriage, He pointed to the Garden of Eden—and how God joined man and wife together (hence they should not divorce). That alone is enough to show a reverent scholar of scripture homosexual relationships of any kind are immoral, the Mosaic law and the Apostle Paul aside.

Rowan meekly and ponderously gives a backhand to all three: Holy Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

He should be removed from his archbishopric.

Divorce is just as bad as gay relationships. It is actually more destructive, destroys the children.

Thank you for saying so honestly. It is the not-talked-about sin in almost every Church because all liberally engage in it. Even Catholics, who completely disavow "divorce," have their own version of it.

I have yet to hear of a pastor who will refuse to willingly marry two individuals when one or both are not eligible due to prior divorce. I suppose he would be out of the ministry in a heartbeat.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.