Time Magazine Interview of Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams

You can find Time Magazine's troubling interview with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, here. In it, Williams again voices his dissatisfaction with the election and consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson, on the grounds that consecrating an openly gay man constituted what many Anglicans, especially in the "global south," regarded as a breach of communion.

Williams' position seems to be that no part of the church should undertake actions that other parts will regard as communion-breaking, even when such actions are undertaken as a response to the Gospel call for compassion and justice.

But, what the Archbishop seems to fail to understand, is that it is not the offical sanctioning or actions that are regarded by opponents as communion-breaking, but the underlying beliefs. If the ordaining of gay and lesbian people, and the blessing of our unions, causes offense, it is because this reflects our emerging belief as a church that the sheer fact of being gay and lesbian is not "intrinsically disordered," and that homosexuality is not contemptible on Biblical grounds.

It is that belief--not just official positions or acts--that is causing the present divide, and there is nothing we can do about that, other than continue to explain our reasoning and share our experience. Many in the global South simply cannot accept the idea of being in communion with those who hold such beliefs.

But, we cannot simply stop believing as we do, and we cannot forcibly stop many in the global South, or among our own recusants, from refusing to accept communion with us as long as we hold such beliefs.

By advocating the idea that we should act as if we believe homosexuality is sinful in order not to scandalize others, the Archbishop--whose writings and presentations prior to his elevation as Archbishop make it clear that he shares the conviction that the Church has been misguided in its attitude toward homosexuality--is inevitably advocating hypocrisy and moral cowardice.
Certainly, any church, like any other community, has a right to adopt official teachings and positions, and to define certain moral positions as being "beyond the pale" of that teaching.

But, it seems to me, that does not add up to an obligation by anyone to "fudge" their disagreement with such teaching. It is incumbent on any moral agent--whether an individual or community--to be open and honest about ones understanding, and not to pretend to adhere to teachings that one does not, in fact, believe in, just in order to "fit in the community."

And then, to accept the consequences: If ones convictions fall within the "official" teaching of a group one has historically belonged to, well and good. If not, then one must have the backbone to declare what one finds to be true. This does not mean one should accept lightly a parting of the ways between oneself and others with whom one has been in community. But, one should have the backbone not to pretend to believe other than one does just because others make it clear that, on the basis of that belief, they can no longer accept you as part of the community. Anything less is immoral cowardice.

As a gay person who remained in the closet all too long in a cowardly and immoral attempt to "fit into" an often unaccepting community, I can speak to this from hard-won experience.

When ones attempts to "fit in" go beyond "fudging" about ones beliefs or experience, to turning a blind eye to injustice by members of the community toward others, that immorality is greatly compounded.

And that is why, I am sad to say, I believe Archbishop Williams' positions, actions and statements around the issue of homosexuality in the Church have been both immoral, and cowardly.

Willliams' cowardice has been somewhat mitigated by his concern for avoiding past "colonialist" behavior on the part of European and Euro-American Christians toward their sisters and brothers in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and their descendents. But, the Archbishop does not seem to understand how paternalistic his current stance is. If we are to treat our fellow Anglicans of the global South and East as fellow adults, then this entails being honest with them about where we stand, and accepting that they may find this unacceptable, and choose to stand apart from us. That is their adult prerogative. But, to dissemble to them, to attempt to shield them from the fact that we disagree profoundly with them about notions of gender role and sexuality, about Biblical interpretation and even, in certain important respects, about the meaning of faith in God, is to treat them as children, and is an attitude profoundly caught up in our past colonialist relationship.