What is in Kelvin's Head?

Postcard to Rowan

09/09/2012

Dear Rowan, wondered whether it had occurred to you that if you give an interview in one country, these days, it will probably be picked up in another country.

Take this interview that you’ve given to the Telegraph this weekend. Did you have any regrets? Oh yes, not going to the USA to deal with the gay bishop thing sooner… etc

Now, just a quick PR thought here. It might be a good idea to stop and think about what those comments might have sounded like on the other side of the pond. before making them. US Episcopalians are hardly going to take kindly to the idea that you could have come over and sorted them out sooner now, are they? Apart from anything else, so many of them thought they did the right thing in consecrating +Gene Robinson and even more of them thought they were entitled under their polity to make that decision, whether it was the right one or not.

Dear, dear Rowan. You’ve made lots of statements like this in your time as Archbishop of Canterbury. They bewilder people because folk think you are wise and yet it looks so gauche.

Please stop. Even in these last days.

Enough already, as they say in some places.

KELVIN

Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams

7 responses to “Well-meaning but homophobic”

June Butler

26/08/2014

Seems to me “well-meaning but homophobic” in these days and times implies vincible ignorance and is no longer useful as an excuse for homophobic language. The leaders of the C of E seem paralyzed, unable to articulate policies to move forward on equality for LGTB persons that are other than laughable. Think “deer in the headlights”.

Reply
Lawrence Rosenfeld

26/08/2014

I suppose @RevArun might say that women are welcome for the same reason, eh?

Reply
1. margaret of the sea of galilee
  
  27/08/2014
  
  Exactly what I thought.
  
  Reply
Kelvin

26/08/2014

I’ve removed a previous comment. I’d prefer to retain the focus on the institutional elements of this rather than speculating about an individual.

Reply
Dharma Nicodemus Cuthbert

26/08/2014

As society changes many people are not sure of the new, and therefore condemn it, without thought. I am safe, with the Devil l know. It’s a way of life, not dealing with changes. If we think about how much has changed; homosexuality was illegal until 1969 in England; Scotland caught up in 1983; women have a right to equal pay; the only job that is still excluded from them is working down a mine:
There are men who are prepared to wait to see a male doctor, especially if it is the genitals.
Racism is not tolerated by most, but it is still used by people who want a reaction. There was, when the world and I were young, a shoe polish, called nigger brown. This wasn’t considered at the time as being wrong.

Reply
John O’Leary

27/08/2014

I take your point, and I don’t disagree. If we look at another person and only see the gay part as ‘broken’, then that’s homophobic, no matter how well intentioned. Plus I always find something disturbingly patronising when people say ‘We’re all broken’, as if the speaker doesn’t quite believe it of him/herself, while seeing it very clearly in the other.

However, there’s another way of looking at it. The very fact that we are human means that we are broken. If being gay is part of that humanity, then it’s part also of that brokenness. It’s all part of the messy mixture that we struggle with, and build our rickety lives with, but for which we also should praise and thank God.

Reply
Allan Ronald

27/08/2014

‘Thinking Anglicans’ has a post up about Vicky Beeching’s coming out but does not link to the discussion here. I asked why but they did not reply let alone publish my question.

Reply