We are only talking about one small aspect of the church, allowing homosexuals to become bishops.
Lots of people, including my ordinated female friend don't think women should be bishops.
She says the role is better suited to men.
It might well be that many people are excluded from being bishops, perhaps because of divorce or perhaps they have had an affair. Or maybe they are just controversial in some way.
Like it or not certain things fall outside the core principals of the church. Family and family values plays an important role.
In most cases many people in church overlook things or are accepting of things, that might exclude someone from being a bishop.
So what the laity will accept in some situations, it won't in others.
The thing about the bishop though ( more so than any other role ) is that he administers and lays on hands and ministers to those ministering to the laity.
As this puts it.
. He is responsible for teaching, governing, and sanctifying the faithful of his diocese, sharing these duties with the priests and deacons who serve under him.
Now, you can't be a bishop if the way you live runs contrary to whatever they decide the core principals of the church are.
So if you have an affair you lose your job ( and that applies to vicars too)
The people at the top when they make a decision think they are responsible for the consequences in the laity below.
I don't think it is that they are homophobic, but more that the role the bishop plays in the church, it's important that he represents the core beliefs of the church and is not controversial in any way.
He is in effect passing on the Holy Spirit to those below him, that's why he lays his hands on the person when ordinating them.
It's also the reason Women find it hard to become bishops.
It's because those below them don't think they have the authority to do so.
That's the thing about bishops and their role.
It doesn't just effect the bishop, if effects the whole church, because when you first become a Christian, the bishop comes. So it even effects a new Christian.
If people, for whatever reason, don't believe the authority of the bishop, to do what he does then the whole church becomes diluted and somewhat less.
It doesn't matter if the reason is because they are a woman, has had a past affair and is divorced, or is a practicing homosexual or is in some other way, controversial.
That's how I see it.
They felt they weren't acting in the best interests of the rest of the church by taking a step that the congregations weren't ready for, and wasn't very clearly biblical.
Homosexuality is controversial, at least where the bible is concerned. Some say it was referring to certain aspects of something that happened and that the bible isn't referring to homosexuality generally, others argue differently.
They needed to feel they could argue a case for it.
Because they would have had to argue their case for it or the African churches would have broken away ( and they are growing ATM)
It's the congregations that pay their wages.
It's the congregations that can change things.
But it's often the most religious and those that are against it, that put the most in the coffers.
Some at the church I went to, put in 10% of their earnings.
It's people like that, that get involved have the most say in church policy.
The one I went to was Methodist / c of e.
It came up in conversation once with the vicar.
The Methodist minister was ok with the idea of gay priests as long as they weren't practicing.
I think it's the role of the bishop that is causing an issue.
