<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;The Body&#8217;s Grace:&#8221; ++Rowan on Human Sexuality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.religiocity.org/2009/04/08/the-bodys-grace-rowan-on-human-sexuality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.religiocity.org/2009/04/08/the-bodys-grace-rowan-on-human-sexuality/</link>
	<description>political theology in the city</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:11:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: matt</title>
		<link>http://www.religiocity.org/2009/04/08/the-bodys-grace-rowan-on-human-sexuality/#comment-72183</link>
		<dc:creator>matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:05:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.religiocity.org/?p=709#comment-72183</guid>
		<description>Joel, 

Thanks for your comment. I really like your blog by the way and will link to it soon. 

I am reading the new critical biography of Rowan Williams, _Rowan&#039;s Rule_ by Rupert Smartt. In it he shows just how much of a deep, deep traditionalist Rowan is. His default posture on homosexual issues, like that of women, was completely in line with tradition. 

And yet, as you well know, we are Protestants for a reason. 

Rowan (before his enthronement) would argue that this issue is in some ways similar to women and slavery. 

Scripture and Reason are prior to tradition. 

I commend this biography to you.

Of course having said all of this, Rowan&#039;s current view (as ABC) is that regardless of one&#039;s view or convictions on this issue, all of that is trumped by our communion (&lt;em&gt;sobornost&lt;/em&gt;) in the Global Church. This of course is what the Windsor Process are all about. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joel, </p>
<p>Thanks for your comment. I really like your blog by the way and will link to it soon. </p>
<p>I am reading the new critical biography of Rowan Williams, _Rowan&#8217;s Rule_ by Rupert Smartt. In it he shows just how much of a deep, deep traditionalist Rowan is. His default posture on homosexual issues, like that of women, was completely in line with tradition. </p>
<p>And yet, as you well know, we are Protestants for a reason. </p>
<p>Rowan (before his enthronement) would argue that this issue is in some ways similar to women and slavery. </p>
<p>Scripture and Reason are prior to tradition. </p>
<p>I commend this biography to you.</p>
<p>Of course having said all of this, Rowan&#8217;s current view (as ABC) is that regardless of one&#8217;s view or convictions on this issue, all of that is trumped by our communion (<em>sobornost</em>) in the Global Church. This of course is what the Windsor Process are all about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joel</title>
		<link>http://www.religiocity.org/2009/04/08/the-bodys-grace-rowan-on-human-sexuality/#comment-72171</link>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:20:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.religiocity.org/?p=709#comment-72171</guid>
		<description>Does the teaching of the Church (Old and New Covenant) for 4-6,000 years matter? Did we suddenly become wiser in the 20th century?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does the teaching of the Church (Old and New Covenant) for 4-6,000 years matter? Did we suddenly become wiser in the 20th century?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

