Anglicans exclude the US Episcopalians over gay bishops

[ProfessorDavey]

Much is made about the deep pain that the issue has caused, but interestingly, the media (and some folk here) seem only to deal with the pain caused to those who feeel that homosexuality is acceptable, ignoring the pain caused to others, quite possibly a majority, who hold different beliefs.

But they aren't actually affected by it are they, unlike gay people who are suffering discrimination.

It is a bit like equating the 'pain' felt by racists if discrimination against black people is made unlawful, with the 'pain' felt by black people if discrimination is permitted.

[ProfessorDavey]

It looks as if they have caved in to the African churches, who may have been threatening to split, unless the US church was suspended.   Some of these African churches seem to support imprisonment for gays, and it makes me wonder how much further this might go - over women priests, for example, or divorced people.   The African tail is wagging the dog - and the conservatives are winning.

Exactly - it should have been the African churches threatened with ejection unless they accept equality and fairness.

And the ABofC claims to be a moral leader - what complete nonsense, and frankly what moral cowardice.

[ad_orientem]

Exactly - it should have been the African churches threatened with ejection unless they accept equality and fairness.

And the ABofC claims to be a moral leader - what complete nonsense, and frankly what moral cowardice.

Only according to the spirit of the age but we all know that's whimsical.

[ProfessorDavey]

Only according to the spirit of the age but we all know that's whimsical.

No we don't - any more than equality for people regardless of gender is a whim, or equality regardless of race. I am very, very confident that in 100 or 200 years time we will look back in horror at how we used to treat gay people, just as we do now at how we used to treat black people and women 100 or 200 years ago.

You (and others like you) are the equivalent of those railing against ridding the world of discrimination against women or black people. There will always be those on the wrong side of a moral argument - and history won't look kindly on them. And history won't look kindly on those such as you and Hope railing against allowing individuals equality regardless of their sexuality.

The moral train is moving very fast on this at the moment (just as there were times in history when it moved fast on racial or gender discrimination), so either get on board, or get out of the way.

[Shaker]

Brilliant post Prof. Diddy - the final paragraph especially.

[wigginhall]

Exactly - it should have been the African churches threatened with ejection unless they accept equality and fairness.

And the ABofC claims to be a moral leader - what complete nonsense, and frankly what moral cowardice.

It's interesting that this didn't happen over women priests or remarriage of divorced people.   Here, there was an agreement to disagree.   But I suppose the African churches are strongly homophobic, some of the African bishops appearing to support jail for gays, and so on, so they threatened to split over this, unless the Piskies were suspended.   I wonder if Welby has realized how this presents the Anglican brand - as thoroughly reactionary?

It also seems to make church government pointless, for example, synods and so on. 

[Aruntraveller]

Glad to see homophobia alive and kicking Ad-o and Hope.

I feel your pain at not being allowed to discriminate.

How you must suffer.

Meanwhile gay people continue to suffer in Uganda (and indeed across much of Africa) with the explicit support given by Church leaders.

http://www.mambaonline.com/2014/01/31/african-bishops-wont-compromise-on-gays/ 


And as we have also seen violence by the mob feeling justified in behaving thus because of the Church's stance.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/15/mob-attacks-allegedgaysinnigeriancapital.html

How proud, humane and decent you must feel by supporting what look to me like murderous, homophobic, cheer-leading thugs.
 

[Outrider]

Only according to the spirit of the age but we all know that's whimsical.

But intolerance is 'Holy' and eternal, right...

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

Oddly enough, the definition of 'primate' in the Oxford Dictionary makes no mention of monkeys, Matt.  Perhaps that suggests that your last remark suits you better.   http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/primate

I believe that Sir Solly Zuckerman's zoological magnum opus was originally called "The Sexual Life of Primates". However, for fear that the public might think this was all about the love-life of lusty bishops, this was changed to "The Sexual Life of Monkeys and Apes".

[wigginhall]

Why would any LGBT person be an Anglican after this?   

[Rhiannon]

Why would any LGBT person be an Anglican after this?

Why would anyone with a shred of decency?

[wigginhall]

Why would anyone with a shred of decency?

Good point.   I suppose if you are in a gay-friendly church, you can argue that you are fighting back against bigotry, but after a while, it wears a bit thin.  It's a bit like joining the Tory part to fight for feminism.

[Dicky Underpants]

Why would any LGBT person be an Anglican after this?

I've often wondered about the strength of the attraction of Anglicanism - even over the question of women priests. Of course, I thoroughly approve of women, gays, trans etc being Anglican priests, bishops or whatever, but why does it have to be Anglicanism? (It sure isn't going to be Catholicism or Orthodox or any of the fundamentalisms, I know) But there are other ways of being a Christian, in organisations which are not so hung-up on these matters. Maybe it's the sense of tradition and ritual that means so much, but in a branch of Christianity, whose birth came from the politics of compromise in many ways, I wonder why people think being an Anglican is the best way of being a Christian.

[wigginhall]

I've often wondered about the strength of the attraction of Anglicanism - even over the question of women priests. Of course, I thoroughly approve of women, gays, trans etc being Anglican priests, bishops or whatever, but why does it have to be Anglicanism? (It sure isn't going to be Catholicism or Orthodox or any of the fundamentalisms, I know) But here are other ways of being a Christian, in organisations which are not so hung-up on these matters. Maybe it's the sense of tradition and ritual that means so much, but in a branch of Christianity, whose birth came from the politics of compromise in many ways, I wonder why people think being an Anglican is the best way of being a Christian.

It's a complex thing, isn't it?  Partly to do with Englishness, I suppose, and tradition, and the beautiful churches, and the sense that Anglicanism is a via media.  Plus 'I could never be a Catholic'. 

In my village in Norfolk, there is a whopping great church in the main street.   Where I live in London, there is a whopping great church round the corner, where all the yuppies go. 

[OH MY WORLD!]

Matty,
How about you hop on your broom and fly over to the Middle East and tell the hundreds of millions of men that they are gay cause they kiss each other when meeting? You really are off your handle today.

You are having one of your tantrums and going after Hope like you do every day calling him nasty names as usual. And this is really weird because you are the fella that ranted against the immigrant make up of your little area.

Now the Economist mag arrived on Monday and it just so happens it has an article about your Englican thingy. I write Englican because I once heard my dad say that.

The Church of England Resurrection?

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21685473-parts-established-church-are-learning-their-immigrant-brethren-resurrection

[ad_orientem]

Glad to see homophobia alive and kicking Ad-o and Hope.

I feel your pain at not being allowed to discriminate.

How you must suffer.

Meanwhile gay people continue to suffer in Uganda (and indeed across much of Africa) with the explicit support given by Church leaders.

http://www.mambaonline.com/2014/01/31/african-bishops-wont-compromise-on-gays/ 


And as we have also seen violence by the mob feeling justified in behaving thus because of the Church's stance.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/15/mob-attacks-allegedgaysinnigeriancapital.html

How proud, humane and decent you must feel by supporting what look to me like murderous, homophobic, cheer-leading thugs.

Zzzz!

[ad_orientem]

But intolerance is 'Holy' and eternal, right...

O.

Intolerance of sin? Damn right!

[Rhiannon]

I've often wondered about the strength of the attraction of Anglicanism - even over the question of women priests. Of course, I thoroughly approve of women, gays, trans etc being Anglican priests, bishops or whatever, but why does it have to be Anglicanism? (It sure isn't going to be Catholicism or Orthodox or any of the fundamentalisms, I know) But there are other ways of being a Christian, in organisations which are not so hung-up on these matters. Maybe it's the sense of tradition and ritual that means so much, but in a branch of Christianity, whose birth came from the politics of compromise in many ways, I wonder why people think being an Anglican is the best way of being a Christian.

It's not quite so easy. The last I knew the only church to offer full equality is the Unitarians, but they are thin on the ground. The Society of Friends also offer full equality but they are a Meeting, not a church. And neither offer one of the big attractions of Anglicanism - weekly Communion.

Methodism might be a reasonable option I guess.

[wigginhall]

I was friends with a rector in central London,  who was himself gay, so this seemed to solve the problem, except of course, for homophobes!  But he was a one-off, an amazingly charismatic and entertaining guy.  But I think the Bishop of London was a conservative, so there you are, up against it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Intolerance of sin? Damn right!

As I said previously - either get on the moral train or get out of the way because it has a momentum that you can't stop.

Don't forget that back in the day there were people who opposed abolition of slavery - often on religious grounds - history sees their views as abhorrent and offensive. And history will see your views in exactly the same way. You are defending the indefensible.

[Dicky Underpants]

It's not quite so easy. The last I knew the only church to offer full equality is the Unitarians, but they are thin on the ground. The Society of Friends also offer full equality but they are a Meeting, not a church. And neither offer one of the big attractions of Anglicanism - weekly Communion.

Methodism might be a reasonable option I guess.

That's what immediately came to mind when 'women priests' was the big issue a few decades back. You're right - there aren't that many 'liberal' options. However, in questions of theology the Episcopalian and British Anglicanism have moved so far from anything the African Anglicans appear to believe, it's probably high time all concerned admitted that these separate factions are as different as chalk and cheese, and work out some means of going their separate ways - which would mean Canterbury acknowledging the greater common beliefs of the Episcopalians rather than what has appeared to have happened.

[Owlswing]

I believe that Sir Solly Zuckerman's zoological magnum opus was originally called "The Sexual Life of Primates". However, for fear that the public might think this was all about the love-life of lusty bishops, this was changed to "The Sexual Life of Monkeys and Apes".

LOVL!

[Dicky Underpants]

I was friends with a rector in central London,  who was himself gay, so this seemed to solve the problem, except of course, for homophobes!  But he was a one-off, an amazingly charismatic and entertaining guy.  But I think the Bishop of London was a conservative, so there you are, up against it.

But that Bishop of London was surely not so conservative as certain African bishops? Odd that prior to the arrival of Christianity in Africa, there seemed to be a lot more tolerance of these matters (as far as I know).

[Owlswing]

Good point.   I suppose if you are in a gay-friendly church, you can argue that you are fighting back against bigotry, but after a while, it wears a bit thin.  It's a bit like joining the Tory part to fight for feminism.

Or, as someone put it yonks ago - fighting for peace is about as much use as fucking for virginity!

[Rhiannon]

Yes, individual churches can be good - my old pp was a master of tolerance - but he still had to swear obedience to his bishop, including on the gay issue. When I joined the church in my early twenties it was known to accommodate all - the 'broad church' - and it was known that if you wanted to get a gay relationship blessed certain priests would do it - indeed certain priests had their own relationships blessed. The Jeffrey John debacle changed the church into a conservative shell in which the fear of loss of power (which is why Canterbury ties itself in knots to please Africa) matters more than justice, equality and love.