OK Gay Episcopalians. What now?

[Meeker Morgan]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/06/28/anglican.schism.reut/index.html

Gay bishops: Anglicans face split

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- The leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, has said the worldwide church may have to split to end a bitter row over the consecration of gay bishops.

In a move that analysts say will effectively exclude Americans from the global Anglican communion, Williams proposed churches should be asked to sign a formal covenant, allowing some to be fuller members of the communion than others.

-- snip --

My own position: Bag religion completely. Even "liberal" religion.

[jody]

1. At least one Episcopalian churche has already spit over the issue. n/t

[wryter2000]

2. The American church

The American church is fighting very hard for gay rights against its own parent church. They could make it easy on themselves by shrugging and saying, "Nothing we can do. The powers that be have tied our hands." I think they deserve some support.

To quote Bishop Spong...
From: Homophobia -- No Compromise Possible

"I thought about this period of history as I read of my own church, the Anglican Communion, seeking a way, "for the sake of unity," to accommodate divergent opinions on the issue of homosexuality. The Church's leadership is acting as if negotiation is possible in this conflict, yet the obvious fact is that homosexuality, like slavery, is a moral issue and thus not amenable to compromise. Once again today's debate pits an emerging consciousness against a dying definition. The old definition asserts that homosexuality is a choice that evil, perverted or subhuman people make. It cannot, therefore, be tolerated. People whose depravity causes them to choose "this lifestyle" must be converted or removed lest they destroy the social order; if they are homosexual because of a mental illness, they must be cured or isolated lest they infect the health of all our citizens. That is the definition, stated honestly but more baldly than its proponents will appreciate, that is held by those who call themselves conservative or traditional Christians. I suspect, based on the results of our recent election, that they are a majority in the body politic of America at this moment. They are, however, a frightened majority because every statistical study indicates that this point of view is declining. To defend this position by claiming that the refusal to accept this perspective will destroy "the unity of the Church," is a breathtakingly bankrupt idea. Trapped inside dying definitions, these Christians assume that not to agree with them places their critics on the side of immorality and moral anarchy.

"The emerging new consciousness, on the other hand, rejects every part of that definition. It asserts that homosexual people are neither morally depraved nor mentally sick, since one's sexual orientation is not a choice; but something to which one awakens. It is like the dawning realization that one is male or female, part of a particular race or nation or even right or left-handed. A just and moral society cannot be erected on a premise that some human beings are subhuman or perverted, not on the basis of their doing but on the basis of their being. It matters not what any source of ancient wisdom has previously declared. The Bible, for example, was once quoted to support slavery, to oppose science and to prevent women from achieving equality. On every one of those issues the Bible was quite simply wrong. To quote it now to uphold the evil of homophobia is no less wrong. These efforts will fail as they always do. The ultimate tragedy is, however, that some church leaders, ever on the wrong side of great moral questions of history, never seem to learn history's lesson that any prejudice once publicly challenged by a new consciousness is doomed."

[kenny blankenship]

3. All that really separates them

is that American Episcopalians think their gay prelates should be out and the COE think their gay prelates should be gay in secret.
Given the near identity between their positions, I'm sure they'll be able to patch it up in a few years if they split.

[WyLoochka]

7. I think they

will patch it up over the years too, maybe not just a "few" though. The probability that they will buckle in the near future to the southern bigots looks pretty high.

The church I have attended a few times just a month ago installed a woman priest. I wonder which way the congregation will go - with the bigots, who are also largely intolerant of ordaining women or stick with the American church and it's new female Presiding Bishop.

[tjwmason]

9. The C.ofE. isn't the problem.

It's the various Africa provinces (except C.P.S.A.) who have decided to make homosexuality the touch-stone issue.

Archbishop Rowan is almost certainly personally in favour of gay bishops, but he sees the role of Archbishop of Canterbury as being to keep the Communion together - and there's no doubt where the majority of it is.

[Nimrod2005]

4. Now they have a woman too for the first time ever...Will women

go with gays?

[Warpy]

5. As little use as I have for religion, I can't agree with your

sentiment. I've seen it be a great comfort to too many people.

I sincerely hope the outrage is among the few and that the church deserves its reputation for liberalism and for follwing the message of Jesus, which is basically a good one.

It's just puzzling to me how much opposition is coming from the UK. I would suspect that the entrenched homophobia originates at the top, not the bottom.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Ironically, the "top" of the hierarchy is mainly responding

to the rejection of homosexuality by 3rd world bishops particularly in Africa, which would seem to be the bottom. However, since the proselytizable 3rd world populations represent the main hope for the Church for a relevant future, the bigotry of the post-colonial bishoprics looms so large over the future of the Church of England that they are willing to throw away the church in America in exchange, even though their own impulses and convictions are much closer to the Americans.

You see, they have to compete with the Catholic Church in Africa, (and Rome isn't about to acknowledge the gayness in their own clergy) and so this is a terrible embarrassment for the C.O.E. and a blow to all their hopes for expansion.

[Warpy]

8. That makes a great deal of sense

as to why the top is so out of step with the laity.

Geopolitics. It's not just for secular empires any more.