It looks like the divide between Anglicans and Episcopalians, the American branch of the Church of England, threatens to grow ever wider, now that the Americans have named as their leader the former Bishop of Nevada, a woman, Katharine Jefforts Schori, who in addition to being female is an open supporter of gay rights, not only in society, but in the Church itself. This apparently includes the ordination of gays.
While there is evidently no problem with the ordination of women at the local parish level, the naming of a woman to such a position of authority is indeed controversial, and against traditional church doctrine and policy. This, then, would be the second crisis since 2003, when relations between the two branches became frayed over the Americans appoitment of V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man with a live-in partner, to be the bishop of New Hampshire.
Anglican Church doctrine explicitly states that homosexuality is a violation of scripture. This, however, seems to be the minority opinion in the
In order to forestall a permanent rupture of the churches, Archbishop Rowan Williams suggested the divided churches could stay together under a system in which members with non-traditional views on such issues as gay clergy could accept a lesser role.
“Some actions-and sacremental actions in particular-just do have the effect of putting a church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other churches”, he explained in a missive to the Anglican Communities 38 ironically named Primates-the leaders of the Church.
Me, I don’t see what the problem is, so long as a gay priest keeps his sexuality to himself. Though I can see how it might be a problem to some if a male priests male lover sits there making goo goo eyes at him through the service, or gets in a snit over a look another male parishioner gives the big boss man, or throws a hissy fit over some slight, real of imagined. Or if a gerbil suddenly comes scrambling out from under the priests robes. On the other hand, if it’s against official Church policy, there you have it-it is what it is. Yes, as you might have guessed, I think it’s funny.
So there you have it. And see, all this time you thought American Christians were all Bible thumping, hellfire and brimstone preaching, right wing social conservatives.
7 comments:
In the Episcopal Church it had been an ustated assumption that homosexuality (or homosexual behavior)was a sin just as nearly everyone assumed it was except maybe people who were gay. It is only in the last 30 years that other people have thought differently. If your statement,"Anglican Church doctrine explicitly states that homosexuality is a violation of scripture" refers to the Lambeth resolution from 1998 that stated was "homosexuality was incompatible with scripture" that would be a mistake. Resolutions from the Lambeth Conference or the General Convention are non-binding. They may contribute to our understanding of the doctrine of the Church, but they do not make doctrine.
This is an argument close to my heart, since I consider myself a follower of Christ and have watched people chased out of the church by ignorant idiots screaming about God hating Gays... eventually, I believe all of the churches who are intent on looking deeper than the many-translated texts of their handy King James will take a stand on gay christian rights. Meaning stand UP for gay christians and their rights.
Yeah... well, I'm a dreamer.
Can I soapbox for a second? Because I have said these things soooo many times to churchgoers around me and received blank stares in return. "But it's an abomination...duh duh duh..." they say.
When you consider that "homosexual" wasn't even in the English language until the late 1800's and never appeared in any bible until the 1940's, you have to wonder what -exactly- the original writings of the bible said. Some of the most oft-quoted "bans" against gays in the Bible (Good old Leviticus)appear in the same paragraph that tells a man not to have sex with a woman having her period. Same book that says "Don't eat meat with blood in it", "Or wear clothes with more than one kind of thread."
UGH. It reminds me why I split from the "Church" so long ago and content myself to quietly worship on my own.
Soapbox finished.
Sorry it took a while to respond to you, country parson, and thanks for the clarification. Still, doesn't the church pretty much set policy as a general rule as to how scripture is to be interpreted? Otherwise, why the ruckus? Not taking sides, now, mind you, just out of curiosity.
As an example, I used to be a Baptist, and it is pretty much dogma in the Baptist Church that the social drinking of alcoholic beverages is considered against scripture, and though there are Baptsts that certainly do drink anyway, this is considered a binding rule, if you will, as decided by the Southern Baptist Convention.
Meowcatt, you never cease to amaze me. I think it's commendable for you to express your views in oppossition to what is really the standard policy of most Christian hierarchical organizations, or seems to be. You are obviously very involved with your faith in Christ, and have a relationship with him based on love and tolerance, acceptance, and forgiveness, some of the many attributes by which he is most widely known, or should be.
At the same time, as I said in my post, it is what it is. There will always be divergences and differences among people, and these people you are refering to come from an entiely different mind-set and way of looking at things. I wouldn't count on getting through to a lot of them if I were you. The bad thing about them isn't so much how they feel personally, or as a group, but how they try to force their views on others, even through the political realm, that I find troubling.
What it amounts to is, in a very real way, you and they are worshipping what seems to be two different gods. Keep on doing what you're doing,and hopefully you will find a community of like minded Christians who you feel comfortable being a part of. Of course, I doubt youre going to find a lot of them that practice witchcraft, but that's a whole other story.
The problem with homosexuality is that St. Paul pretty clearly condemned it in the New Testament (Romans 1:24-28; 1 Corrinthians 6:9-10), so that means it's not just about observing Torah literally (which almost nobody except Karaite Jews try to do). Since Paul addressed it explicitly twice, it's considered pretty binding by those who see the Bible as a primary basis for Christianity. For those who see tradition as equally or even more binding, homosexuality doesn't fare well by that standard, either.
Consequently, it takes a rather new view of Christianity to make homosexuality compatible with Christian practice and tradition. The mainline denominations seem to be slowly developing this view for large communities to embrace. (The Episcopalians, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Evancelical Lutherans, the United Methodists, the United Church of Christ, and especially the Unitarian Universalists have all made lesser or greater moves in that direction.) However, I find it significant that these communities are shrinking, whereas the more traditional denominations (the Presbyterian Church in America, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, the Southern Baptists, and innumerable non-denominational churches with conservative leanings) are largely growing. Those who no longer consider themselves Christians at all are also on the rise.
I've known few people who've read the whole Bible who didn't decide to either (1) take it literally and become rather conservative or (2) put it asside and try to find faith elsewhere. I admire your desire to rectify the two, meowkaat, but I suspect that it will be very hard to do it consistently. I suspect, in time, that those with more progressive leanings will begin to find Jesus entirely, or largely, outside of the Bible. I'm very curious to see where all this takes us . . .
I think Paul may have been referring to Nero and the Roman Imperial court, when he talked about how they were given over to unnatural lusts, one for another, and how they had been given over to a "reporbate mind". Still, it is true that this would apply to all, not merely Nero.
Like I said, it is what it is.
It is that.
Post a Comment