I suspect that the Archbishop of Canterbury actively supports gay rights on a theological basis (read his paper The Body’s Grace). He is, though, in a minority; there is a substantial grouping that actively opposes gay rights on theological grounds and another grouping that has no opinion on theological grounds, but breaks down into pro, anti and agnostic. This is equally true in the much-demonised conservative churches that seem determined to insist on their dogma becoming mandatory (which is itself against the via media traditions of the C of E.

Given, though, that at least the leaderships of those churches seem to find the very notion of differing views on, for instance, homosexuality abhorrent, it’s not unreasonable to ask why they don’t just break from the Anglican Communion. The answer, I think at least in part, is in the House of Lords. While it is certainly true that much of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s power within both the C of E and Anglican Communion comes from cajoling and persuasion, he has something approaching a bully pulpit as noone has, for historical reasons, the authority of the occupant of the Chair of Saint Augustine. That translates into political power.

Tony Kennick - in Williams’ case, I genuinely think that he does not want an office, which he currently holds, that he believes is a force for good to lose power. I don’t think it is any personal desire for power on his part in any way, shape or form.

I suspect that Rowan Williams and people of similar religious views to him support the via media for the same reason as Elizabeth I; binding people into a larger whole stops the nutters causing problems. The advantage of keeping them in, from the point of view of Lambeth Palace, is that it offers greater opportunity to challenge the views of the intransigent, conservative leaderships with a view to supporting the more, ahem, enlightened people at the second and third levels of seniority in the African churches. The same applies to the C of E itself, as a split in the Anglican Communion would lead to a realignment of churches in England as well and would, I think, strengthen the hands of less enlightened sections within the Church of England (which would retain its historical importance and emotional affiliations). For that reason, I disagree with Anticant.

While it may not be possible to change people’s views on, say, homosexuality, it may be possible to get them to focus on other things by saying that they are of at least equal concern to the Church from theological and practical perspectives.

For that reason, I have to disagree with Robert; nothing could be worse than to give the conservatives the added ammunition of a liberal-religious/secularist conspiracy to overturn the True Faith.

I support disestablishment; however, it must be done in a way that is sensitive to the issues that the C of E and Anglican Communion face.

xD.

Homo-sexual reproduction is biologically impossible (although it may become practical science in the near future), so according to theological doctrine homosexual intercourse does not reflect a real psychological identity separate and pared from the rest of society. Some churches do extrapolate this to mean that homosexual behaviours (including physical intercourse) are to be discouraged and others go even further, taking the absolutist view that these should be outlawed and punished.

This does, of course, depend upon a view being taken as to how the practice coheres with the greater part of church beliefs, but then again, this is why it is called a communion and not called a religion.

The potential for a schism reflects the reality that many African churches commune more closely with Roman (conservative/traditionalist) orthodoxy than their Anglican (liberal/realist) counterparts and the battle for adherence (and adherents) can be seen to have an entirely political dimension in this way.

The way we each resolve the problem reflects and defines out own political outlook.

If we view the established church as a constituent grassroots organisation representing the spiritual needs of the community they serve then we may choose to attend the services (or not) provided for and by that congregation, though that may mean travelling to a different building or area to do so, or setting up your own.
However, if we see it as a top-down instrument of state constituted for and by the powers-that-be then a whole lot of energy will be expended shouting each other down in a battle for legitimacy and supremacy between ever-shifting versions of ‘them’ and ‘us’.

We know Dr. Williams’s personal opinion is much more in favour of liberalisation than his official position. Before he became Primate of All England he published a number of works about this topic.
The problem is not the effect of any decision over the whole of the Anglican communion but on a small number of men, the staunchly illiberal archbishops who have said they will secede from the communion if he does. This draws a direct parallel with politics, Dr. Williams doesn’t want to preside over the breakup of the communion and therefore a loss of power of his office any more than a Prime Minister wants to introduce PR and end their association with the system that gave their party a majority.