What did Justin Welby say about gays and violence in Africa?
Last week the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, conducted a radio phone-in on LBC Radio. Gillan Scott, over at God and Politics, characterised it every bit 'a breath of fresh air':
Spending an hour answering questions he covered plenty of basis and information technology was refreshing to hear him talking freely on a range of subjects firsthand including women bishops, welfare reform, the morality of fuel costs, foodbanks and a Christian attitudes to the environment without his words beingness reduced to the usual media soundbites. It was very easy to get a taste of his personality, the mode that his faith has moulded him and why he is the right person to be the Archbishop of Canterbury at this time. His mixture of honesty, pragmatism and theology were thoroughly engaging, profound and at times entertaining.
But of course, inevitably the subject field of same-sex activity spousal relationship came up, and much of the media reporting focussed on this. His comments were given short shrift in a couple of different directions. Here are 2 representative samples, this beginning from the Huffington Mail:
The "breaking story" in Anglican news circles is a radio interview with Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby tying the persecution of African Christians to the fuller inclusion of LGBT people by "the western church."…Where is the lament from the ABofC for LGBT youth who cull suicide over bullying? For those who live in fear of arrest or assail considering of their sexual orientation or gender identity? Or for those who are dying the slow death of internalized homophobia not only condoned past but contributed to past "the church?"
This 2d is from Kelvin Holdsworth, Provost of St Mary's Cathedral, Glasgow:
The Archbishop of Canterbury's statements yesterday in a radio phone-in, which seemed to imply that opening wedlock to same-sex couples would atomic number 82 to murder in Africa, accept u.s.a. into a very murky ethical place….More often than not speaking, I idea it was a poor radio performance…The particularly offensive affair which he has said is to advise that there should be no movement on opening marriage to same-sex couples in the church building because that could lead to Anglicans being murdered in Africa. I notice the ethics of this very straightforward… The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to have been suggesting that our policies should be dictated by murderers.
How might nosotros reply to the beginning kind of comment? Well, here'due south a proposition: How about listening to what Justin actually said?
A gay christian listening to you though may have heard the message that he or she can't marry their partner in their church considering of the conniptions it would give to some African, dare nosotros say less enlightened people, in Africa.
Well I don't call up we cartel say less aware actually. I call up that'due south a sort of neo-colonial approach and it's one I really object to. I think it's not nigh them having conniptions, getting irate, that's nix to do with it. It's about the fact that I've stood by a graveside in Africa of a grouping of Christians who'd been attacked because of something that had happened far far away in America, and they were attacked by other people – because of that a lot of them had been killed. I was in the S Sudan a few weeks ago and the church leaders there were saying please don't change what yous're doing, because then we couldn't accept your assist and we demand your assist desperately. Nosotros take to heed carefully to that, we also take to heed incredibly advisedly to gay people here who desire to get married and as well to recognise that any homophobic behaviour hither causes enormous suffering, particularly to gay teenagers, something I'1000 peculiarly conscious of at the moment. And nosotros take to listen to that very advisedly and work out what nosotros do.
Can you imagine a day when ii people of the same-sex will be married in an Anglican church hither?
I don't know. Personally, I have a real, I wait at the Scriptures, I look at the didactics of the church building, I listen to Christians around the globe and I have real hesitations about that. I'one thousand incredibly uncomfortable proverb that considering I actually don't desire to say no to people who love each other, just you take to take a sense of post-obit what the instruction of the church is, you can't just make sudden changes.
Where is the lament for victims of homophobic bullying? Correct there, in what Justin actually said. And this was not the only indicate at which he said it. It is really disappointing when sure 'revisionists' swap about comments borne of simple ignorance, and (sadly) it suggests a real reluctance to fifty-fifty mind to what has been said. And it is besides disappointing when bishops on Facebook disseminate these views without scrutinising them—though fortunately some proper conversation did follow the posting.
How might we respond to the 2nd betoken of view, which draws a simple, straight, consequentialist line from 1 thing to some other, assuming this is what Justin was saying? Again, the beginning thing is to note Justin's comment in a higher place: it is Scripture (commencement) and the consistent teaching of the church down the ages which has weight, not merely what he witnessed in Africa. Andrew Goddard has simply posted an fantabulous piece on Fulcrum exploring the ethical issues. In relation to the kind of annotate Kelvin makes above, he notes:
Some seem to have heard Archbishop Justin offering a crude form of consequentialism, the view that whether an action is correct or incorrect is determined solely by whether its consequences are proficient or bad: a result of the Church of England accepting gay marriage is that Christians in Africa will be killed, this is clearly incorrect, therefore I am opposed to the Church building of England accepting gay marriage. This has happened due to a mix of poor reporting of the interview and to the sad fact that consequentialism is often people's default line of moral reasoning and then assumed to exist the course of moral argument beingness presented.
After looking carefully at both context and content of Justin's comments, he observes:
This was, in short, an appeal to neighbor-love that politely suggested the questioner needed a bigger vision of what this key Christian command required…
In other words, Archbishop Justin is very far from offering a consequentialist argument that the cruel, wholly unjustifiable infliction of suffering on African Christians should decide and fix the church's stance. Rather, in the face of a call for a sudden alter in church do, he appealed to the classic Anglican process of patient corporate, reasoned ecclesial reflection which listens to a range of homo feel and studies tradition and Scripture, with Scripture as definitive.
Andrew and then explores the complex problems around the price of making the right choices, given that all options have consequences for dissimilar parties—and at that place are challenges on all sides of the discussion.
Those pressing for change therefore need seriously to attend to these complex realities and questions even though they are not as obvious and pressing for about English language Anglicans in their parishes equally they are for bishops whose ministry connects them with the wider church. Those of united states upholding the current teaching and discipline similarly accept seriously to accost the complex realities and questions we face here and now with the introduction of aforementioned-sex matrimony and enquire those in other parts of the Communion to empathise our context as we seek to empathize theirs.
If this happens, then the 'facilitated conversations' might accept some purpose and be fruitful. Just just equally long as the kind of responses we saw above are well and truly prepare bated.
And, by the fashion, could you please pray for Justin Welby and his ministry building? Information technology cannot be either pleasant or easy knowing that every comment you make on this question is going to be misreported and misinterpreted in a thousand unlike directions.
Additional note
I remember in that location is an interesting (and surprising) reflection from Andrew Brown on the question. He includes this comment:
Christians are called on to do what is right, and to trust that God will bring good out of it fifty-fifty if evil immediately follows. Declining to do what you believe is right is, in some lights, a kind of blasphemy.
Welby does not, in fact, believe in gay marriage, and then he's off that item hook. And he has already said enough in favour of gay people to disgust the Ugandan and Nigerian churches. I don't recall yous can charge him of cowardice on this consequence, even if he's wrong.
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If you have valued this mail, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful fence, tin can add existent value. Seek commencement to empathize, then to be understood. Make the well-nigh charitable construal of the views of others and seek to acquire from their perspectives. Don't view debate every bit a conflict to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/what-did-justin-welby-say-about-gays-and-violence-in-africa/
0 Response to "What did Justin Welby say about gays and violence in Africa?"
ارسال یک نظر