Don’t Let the Door Hit You In the Ass…
I’m not Episcopalian, so it’s easy for me to say that the US church should tell the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Anglican Communion buh-bye, but I don’t respond well to ultimatums from bigots.
The Anglican Communion gave the U.S. Episcopal Church a September deadline on Monday to stop blessing same sex unions, but did gave no clear indication of what action it would then take. a September deadline on Monday to stop blessing same sex unions, but did gave no clear indication of what action it would then take.Anglican Church leaders are meeting in Tanzania to reconcile conservative and liberal views on homosexuality, exacerbated by the U.S. Episcopal Church’s consecration of openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson in 2003.
In a statement issued in the final hour of the tense meeting, the Anglican Communion gave the U.S. church the September 30 deadline to meet the request first issued in 2004.
“If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the church in the life of the communion,” the statement said.
The spiritual leader of the world’s 77 million Anglicans, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, said it offered “an interim solution that certainly falls very short of resolving all the disputes.”
Williams has no power to force a solution in the Communion, a loose federation of 38 self-governing churches, which has traditionally run on consensus.
However, he said the U.S. church might not be invited to the 2008 Lambeth Conference — a once in a decade meeting of all Anglican bishops — if it did not comply.
Ooooh! The US bishop might not get to go to a meeting. Okay, I know it’s more than that, but why would she want to go to meetings with people who think they’re too superior to share communion with her? This kind of crap doesn’t sound remotely Christian to me:
Relations are so strained between the liberal and conservative factions that seven archbishops refused this week to take communion with U.S. presiding bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in a rebuke at her unwavering support for Robinson and blessings for same sex unions.
And the ignorance of this guy is amazing:
Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, who called gay relations ”an aberration unknown even in animal relationships,” has set up a parallel conservative movement to allow disgruntled U.S. conservatives to place themselves under his oversight.
It’s unfortunate that the Christian church as a whole has frequently found itself on the wrong side of justice issues throughout history, too co-opted by the establishment to see the wrongs committed not only by society but within its own walls. I’m pleased that the Episcopal Church, often perceived to be the denomination of the powerful, is willing to step out ahead of the crowd for its LGBT brothers and sisters. I hope the US church will stand strong and, if possible, drag the rest of the Anglican Communion, kicking and screaming if necessary, onto the path toward equality.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:01 am
The Anglican threat reminds me of the old joke about unarmed British constables shouting, “Stop! or I’ll yell, ‘Stop!’ again!”
February 20th, 2007 at 7:49 am
I guess they don’t have penguins in Nigeria……
February 20th, 2007 at 8:03 am
“the Episcopal Church, often perceived to be the denomination of the powerful”
episcopalian = methodist who belongs to the local country club.
February 20th, 2007 at 8:18 am
No, Bill, they don’t, but you’d think a Nigerian would have heard of the Bonobo.
Then again, he’s a bishop. What need has he of facts?
February 20th, 2007 at 9:37 am
“I hope the US church will stand strong and, if possible, drag the rest of the Anglican Communion, kicking and screaming if necessary, onto the path toward equality.”
Yes, and I look forward to the day when paedophiles, too, are welcome in our churches. They are not second-class citizens; they do not “choose” to be attracted to children; and anyway, if God didn’t like it, why would he have made them that way? Let us leave these dated stereotype that all paedophiles are child-abusers, and let us realise that it is possible for a 40 year old man to have a meaningful and loving sexual relationship with a 10 year old girl.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:39 am
P.S. and the Bonobo have sexual intercourse even with infants; so that proves it’s entirely natural for a 40 year old man to have a sexual relationship with a 10 year old girl - or boy, for that matter. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just ignorant.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Sorry, Peter, but gay does not equal pedophile. Two adults in a loving relationship has nothing to do with the sickness of an adult having sex with a child.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Here’s the difference… Homosexuality is between two consenting parties. A child cannot consent. An animal cannot consent (if you want to use the popular argument that bestiality is the next step if we okay homosexuality). An adult male of female human being of sound mind can consent.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Dated stereotypes? Jesus Christ loves everyone. I believe He wants all people to come to Him in His church. Even pathetic losers who apparently have such questions about their own heterosexuality, that they want to equate being gay with being a child abuser…..does that mean because I am a heterosexual male, I am a rapist?
February 20th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Okay guys — socially, I’m right there with you. I think the U.S. is far behind on equality for homosexuals. However, I will differ with you as to the issues in the Episcopal Church, perhaps because I am an Episcopalian. And no, Wheeler, I’m not a member of a country club. If you want some history, the Methodists split off from the Episcopal church, which explains the similarity in liturgy, etc.
Anyway, on to why I must disagree on issues of the ECUSA (Episcopal Church USA). My church, the one in which I was baptized, confirmed, married, where I buried my mother, etc., recently split over this issue. Our rector was a self-proclaimed demogogue who thought he was Christ Jesus reincarnate. He secretly catered to and built up an inner circle to divide the church. The idea was to take so much of the congregation and funding that the Dioscese would have to sell the building back to them. After a big proclaimation at the service after Easter, he marched out the back door of the sanctuary carrying a cross to lead his people on to victory (think “Onward Christian Soldiers” here). Press releases came out the next day in the Montgomery Advertiser reporting that he took 80% of the congregation with him. Not true. We are thriving at the church now that his cancerous divisiveness has been removed.
That caveat aside, I have seen firsthand that social reformation, i.e., equality for homosexuals, is an issue that belongs exclusively in the political relm. We have seen in the Middle East, not to mention in this country, what happens when politics and religion are merged. Theocracy results only in isolation and division. I say leave the politics to the politicians, not the Bishops. If same-sex couples are to receive equal treatment under the law, it can come only from our government, not our churches.
Furthermore, it must be said that this issue is a sticky one, given the historical stance on homosexuality in ALL churches. Granted, I was a cultural and religious studies major in college and can debunk every passage in the Bible that condemns homosexuality, but that does not remove those passages from the Bible. I am sympathetic to the effort to secure equal rights for persons of a momosexual orientation, but I cannot condone the efforts of political activists to highjack a Church for political gain. The result can only be the politics of division and isolation, the very politics we condemn on this blog in so many other instances. And in a religious context, where our personal journeys of faith are the top priority, the politics of isolation and division have no place whatsoever.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
EXTRAORDINARILY good argument, Baud! I’m very impressed! The only contrary argument I would give wouldn’t be as to whether or not the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin (it does) but as to whether or not it paints homosexuality as a greater sin than any other. As far as I’ve seen, there’s a whole laundry list of “thou shalt not’s” (not to mention that thinking about doing it is equivalent to doing it) but not one verse that says one sin is worse than another. So I would have to say that by the same standard, you shouldn’t have any church leader who is a sinner. We both know that this isn’t possible, since the bible also says that ALL have sinned and fallen short.
There is actually a toss-up on this particular issue, and I would say it really depends on which demographic your church is trying to reach out to. I say that because of what is written in several of Paul’s letters, like the Corinthians and his letters to Timothy. Typically, these letters are used by some to justify discrimination against women church leaders. That wasn’t what Paul was advocating, as you find when you look at his works as a whole. But in those same passages, he did instruct these churches to follow the customs of the lands they were in. Christian women, in particular, were far more liberated than their secular counterparts, and they were “flaunting” it by wearing what some would have considered inappropriate clothing or hairstyles. Paul suggested that the bickering over whether or not this was acceptable was standing in the way of reaching out to non-Christians and teaching believers more about Jesus and his instructions. For that reason, he suggested that these churches and their followers adapt to the customs of those they were reaching out to. It’s hard, after all, to get someone to accept your beliefs when you are insulting them. If you’re reaching out to a gay community, it may be better to consider giving those from that community a leadership position as long as they are qualified. If you are reaching out to a more traditional congregation, it may be better to stick with heterosexual leaders.
Years ago, a congregation might not have dreamed of ordaining a pastor who is divorced… So I guess in time, gay pastors may become more acceptable. Ultimately, it’s up to the congregation.
But you are absolutely right about religion and politics. Politicians and secular groups have no more business telling churches how to run their organizations than these churches have trying to tell the government not to allow behavior that the church finds offensive, particularly gay marriage. That door definitely swings both ways, and neither group likes to adhere to it.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Baudrillard, Wheeler is an Episcopalian (I think?) [UPDATE: nope, I'm wrong], so he’s only poking fun at himself. Your comment is excellent, but I would add this — the recorded words of Jesus say nothing about homosexuality. They do mention divorce — a sin of which I’m guilty, but something which many who rail against homosexuality accept without question, since they’ve frequently racked up one or two themselves.
Surely working toward equality for everyone is more than just a political issue. I agree that churches shouldn’t be forced to reform themselves, but neither should they be forced to undo reforms because society at large has a problem with their approach.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Baudrillard, am I correct in reading your beautifully written post to say that you dislike activists within the church attempting to use the church’s position as a political weapon in their secular battles? Isn’t this the way pro-life activists have used the Catholic church for years, though? I thought in questions of social justice, the Church was always entering into the fray.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:14 am
AM, I agree entirely with your supplemental analysis. It is one I have often raised in conversations, but I could only write so much in the post. Your analysis of the Paul’s cultural framing of his message is dead on, too. That is what I meant when I said that I could “debunk every passage that condemns homosexuality” — there is an historical and cultural context behind those passages that explains their message in a more comprehensive manner that reconciles those passages with the remainder of the Bible.
I think many “orthodox” activists forget that all sins are equal in the eyes of God. AM is right, “ALL have sinned and fallen short.” And this goes directly to Kathy’s point. While Jesus speaks nothing of homosexuality, he speaks directly to divorce. In fact, his teachings on divorce are so strong, I often wonder if many “orthodox” activists actually read them.
In case they haven’t, some pharisees asked Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” As he was prone to do, Jesus responded with another question, “What did Moses command you?” The pharisees replied that Moses permitted a man to issue his wife a certificate of divorce and then kick her out of the house. Jesus puts the law in context, “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law … But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” The disciples clearly did not get the picture, so when they got Jesus alone, they again ask him what he meant. Jesus replied in stark terms,”Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” Mark 10:2-10.
Why are the “orthodox” activists so quick to raise thir double standards? I think they do so because the very nature of this debate is political. They do not seek to condemn divorcees, because there are no political ramifications for doing so — not to mention that half of the population of this country is divorced or will be. Those seeking equality for homosexuals are seeking POLITICAL retribution, not religious retribution. Only God can grant religious retribution, and God does so according to God’s grace and love for God’s people. Until activist on both sides of the aisle realize this, churches will continue to divide and faiths will continue to be shaken. And yes, Del, this means that I disapprove of activists within the Church highjacking religious doctrine for their own political and secular ideologies, whichever position they advocate.