Rowan Williams: Bible doesn't forbid same sex relationships
Rowan Wiliams
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...
"..Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;..." "...Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
I don't mean to sound like a "Shock Jock", but homosexuality is very nasty when you consider the physical aspect of it. I am absolutely certain that our God, in all of His wisdom, did not intend for the Anus to be penetrated in that manner!
Medical Doctors will testify that they perform repair surgery all the time on gay men who's spintcher muscle has been damaged, and that their feces come out involuntarily (sorry have to be graphic to make a point).
That in itself proves that God did not intend for that kind of sexual behavior. It is a perversion of God's plan and must be repented of!
Unfortunately, Rowan Williams personally believes one thing, but, as a leader of the Anglican Church, now upholds quite another.
From what I can make of the article, he still PERSONALLY believes what he came to as a " 'definitive conclusion' reached after 20 years of study and prayer."
So have his present beliefs turned 180 degrees from his former [post-late 1980s] beliefs concerning homosexual realationships? No. But has his stated position as a leader of the Anglican Church changed? Yes.
IOW, he's recommitting the Anglican Church to something that he does not believe in.
I think it says it all when someone professing to be a believer uses the term "homophobia"
Christians are not scared of homosexuals,and a made up term which tries to paint anyone who morally and scriptually disagrees with it as having some kind of mental illness is the lowest of the low,having been invented by trendy lefties who want to sanitise sin by attempting to reflect criticism of same by making their opponents appear to be some kind of "backwoodsmen"
to quote the "lefty lexicon"
Homophobe - any Christian who thinks that the Homosexual lifestyle is somehow wrong. Note: Muslims are never Homophobes....
Max, I’ll leave the RCs in peace, although I believe they would agree with you on this issue. My problem with the arguments put to me here is that I find them circular, but we’ve been over most of that. I respect your concern that I may mislead people into sin, and I sincerely pray for that not to be the case.
I know that in the eyes of many non-Christians, Christianity is completely identified with homophobia. It’s about the only thing they know about our faith and the noise we make about it stops them hearing anything else. That concerns me for the same reason my stance concerns you.
It has been suggested that I join a ‘liberal laodicean’ or an ‘Anglican’ forum. I’m neither a liberal nor an Anglican. You guys are my fellow-travellers – for your sins. However, this is me signing off. Thanks for your company for the last while.
Amazed wrote: Well, you didn't read the entire article very closely. I suggest you read it again.
It is you who has to read the entire article very closely because the very first sentence states that Williams recommitted the Anglican Communion to its orthodox position that homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture. So according to the first sentence in the article Williams has changed his position 180 degrees from his previous position.
The reason why people are taking such issue with what you are saying is that you are in error and your misinterpretation of scripture will encourage people to continue in behaviour that God finds an abomination and will send them to hell unless they will repent.
As a matter of interest do you believe that Roman Catholicism is christian?
Oh I'm so sorry for disturbing the peace of this forum, where people can vilify and abuse and attribute attitudes and motivations in comfort without having to consider the truth of what they are saying.
But it's getting a bit repetitive now. Rather than engaging seriously with the Word of God, and how to let its light shine in our time, we are back into abuse mode.
I guess that is somewhere else we differ. It is clear to me that that is not Christ's way, but you seem to think it is. I won't be saying you are apostate or accusing you of not being born again just because you don't see things my way, though.
lyn, I can only endorse thoroughly your words in the previous post, and their forthright tone.
The standard texts on homosexuality, or sodomy, are abundantly clear: Lev.18:22; 20:13; Rom.1:26-7; 1 Cor.6:9-10. This is the case in whatever version you choose. The only difference now is the prevalent human inclination to explain these away, manifesting that ever-present sinful human rebellion against God's law and standards.
Rowan Williams is playing word games. Jethro, you are playing word games. On the Great Day of Judgment, when our Lord returns in glory, there will be no opportunity for semantic games. These refuges of lies will be swept away.
Jethro, I think you are deliberately trying to 'stir up' things here. Number one, you cannot be Christian and homosexual. If one truly is born again, changed from the inside out by God, then homosexuality is no longer a part of their life. Women hugging does not constitute homosexuality, quit playing stupid childish games with those who post here. If this 'friend' of yours says she has feelings and desires for women in a lustful way, she is a sodomite. She realized this 'late in life is proof she doesn't know Christ. She must repent, and cry out to God for mercy. If you cared about her, you would tell her this, instead of 'glossing over' her perversion, and thinking it is not really homosexuality. You come here to pick fights with others, and use wishy washy words that make no sense, your point is very unclear. At best, you just want to cause trouble. YOU are in need of repentance sir. Take your post-modern view elsewhere.
Jethro wrote: "a homosexual relationship is one where either party has sexual desires-whether acted on or not- toward the other.....hugging in itself can hardly be called homosexuality,now can it?" A simple question, GK. Where is your Scripture for that?
Romans 1:26-27 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV)
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
"a homosexual relationship is one where either party has sexual desires-whether acted on or not- toward the other.....hugging in itself can hardly be called homosexuality,now can it?" A simple question, GK. Where is your Scripture for that?
Engineer, I struggled to follow most of your post. I think you think my friend's homosexual relationship is innocent. So do I, so at least we agree on that. I think you might say that's because it isn't homosexual. I think my friend would say that it expresses her lack of interest in any sexual relationship with a man. She and I were close friends, but neither I nor any man could take the place of her special same-sex friend. Maybe some might say it is homosexual, but celibate, which makes it OK.
Whatever, it is definitely not just 'women hugging each other'.
At least you let me off the hook of being 'scholarly'. Thanks for that.
a homosexual relationship is one where either party has sexual desires-whether acted on or not- toward the other.....hugging in itself can hardly be called homosexuality,now can it?
it's really VERY simple ....all those posts chasing the facts turned out to be unnecessary after all!!
Well, I must say, Jethro, hopefully in agreement with you; the minute scrutiny of our spiritual life, for the earnest Christian, in order to the suppression of any inordinate desire, lest it become realized, is an exhausting task; and never ending. Every moment of every day, whether alone or confronted by others, every thought, word, and deed is attended by the Word, Will, and Command of God. Even the slightest deviation from these, being sin, should make us all exceeding attentive. This thought always puts me in mind of the words of our Lord in Matt. 12, 'that men shall give an account of every idle word, in the Day of Judgment.' Whew! I pray for your friend's vigilance.
Jethro wrote: 8/10/08 6:11 PM d) I think that homosexual Christians have the same Scriptures that I have, and have to answer to the same Lord, who alone knows their heart and can judge them and me in righteousness. ............ I know a lovely Christian who eventually realised she was homosexually orientated late on in life. Her ‘homosexual relationship’ amounted to having a close friend with whom she was on hugging terms.
You think that women who hug each other are what ANY rational personal would call a ‘homosexual relationship’ ???
What appears to be the case, is that you are deliberately obfuscating, & at heart are reveling in your attempts to look 'modern'.
We all can see the parity of the lie of "christian murderers""Christian rapists" & YOUR 'christian sodomites'
Far from appearing ‘scholarly’, as I mentioned earlier, 8/9/08 11:25 AM you have placed yourself in the position of the cities to which Jesus spoke of the sin of sodomy being ONLY secondary to rejecting Him.
Mt.10:14"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment.
I think I can most helpfully respond to Lyn. She asks, “how many different versions of homosexuality are there?” I have no idea. How many kinds of heterosexuality are there? Neither is monolithic. I know a lovely Christian who eventually realised she was homosexually orientated late on in life. Her ‘homosexual relationship’ amounted to having a close friend with whom she was on hugging terms. None of the sexual violence of Sodom, or that Ezekiel and Paul describe, bear any resemblance to her. If Daniel means to call her a ‘rapist’, then he can answer to his Lord and hers for that. I don’t recognise it, and I’ll answer for that too.
I’m sorry if I come across as ‘scholarly’. I’m no more scholarly than others here. I’m only offering my understanding of Scripture, and explaining as best I can where and why it differs from that of some others. I don’t say I’m right and they are wrong. I recognise GK’s point about judging with discernment. Maybe some here are so sure of their own righteousness and the clarity of their knowledge of the private actions and inner thoughts and motives of others, that they can condemn without feeling the penetrating gaze of Jesus on them. I can’t.
I agree we must ‘speak the truth in love’. I wonder how much love my friend would find here.
63
There are a total of 82 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Rev. Colin Mercer | 11/19/2012
COMMENTS | 
