The Anglican Communion is considering "temporarily" banning gay bishops and same-sex blessing ceremonies for the sake of "unity" between liberal, western churches and their deeply homophobic, mostly African brethren (who have also found a smattering of allies in Europe and America). Draft church legislation would urge dioceses to refrain from choosing bishops "whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church."
Meanwhile, the American Episcopalians have elected a female presiding bishop, which also is making the reactionaries furious (although, in this case, the Archbishop of Canterbury is pledging his support).
At some point, the Anglicans will have to decide if they prefer unity (that is, communion) over Christ's message of love and inclusion. It really shouldn't be a difficult choice.
Update. Despite some premature reports, the news doesn't sound good. Blogger Father Jake has the story: Episcopal Church Bows to the Idol of Communion: Embraces Bigotry.
Update 2. The Presbyterians, too, affirm they won't ordain non-celibate gays. But the church's righteous lefty leadership urges divestment from Israel in support of Palestinian terrorists.
19 Comments for “The High Price of Anglican ‘Communion.’”
posted by Mark on
“He who believes and who is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”
Jesus-Mark 16:16
Yes, Jesus sure was very loving and inclusive. “My way or the highway” is more like it!
posted by David on
It is hardly surprising that one of the more conservative churches is having difficulty accepting gays and women within their ranks. The Anglican Church may have done away with the Pope, but they didn’t become liberal.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
So they have their schism, the stone-age churches in Africa realize they’ve screwed the pooch by kicking out the western churches who were their gravy train, and yet another anti-gay religious group goes bankrupt.
What’s not to like? Isn’t the free market great?!?
posted by Ed Brown on
hmmm
I wonder what The Church of Scientology has to say about women and gays?
posted by Canon Richard T. Nolan on
The continuing evolution of the Episcopal Church in the USA includes the inevitable tensions between “preservers” and “pioneers” found in most human associations. Its relationship with other Churches in the worldwide Anglican Communion is voluntary and also evolving – perhaps to the point of a needed reconfiguration. Rich’s ordained ministry began in 1963 (when we had to appear professionally as “friends”) at the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine, NYC; we were particularly moved when we celebrated our 50th anniversary last fall at a public Cathedral Service. For all men and women genuine equality is slowly emerging. We have experienced much that has been accomplished during the past 50 years; yet, there is so far to go. As we progress toward the ideal, whether religiously or politically, let’s celebrate rather than trvialize each advance and move on to whatever challenges are next. The Rev. Canon Dr. Richard T. Nolan and Robert C. Pingpank, retired, West Palm Beach; http://www.nolan-pingpank.com
posted by Avee on
Thank you, Canon Nolan, for providing some depth to the discussion.
And David, the Episcopalians are hardly “one of the more conservative churches.” Far from it, they take liberal stances on most social issues. They are hardly the Southern Baptists!
posted by Christopher on
The Gospel mesage is love and the rejection of legalism. As the Anglican Communion beomes more and more dominated by homophobic third world witch doctors posing as Christians, Anglicanism continues to drift from that message. But oh how those conservative African bishops LOVE our liberal American Episcopalian money!
posted by Casey on
Much as I, as a Christian, hate the concept of disunity and see sin in unreconciled relationships, here I have to actually agree with the Northeast Libertarian, though perhaps with a different tone. Christopher is right that the theology of many of the African churches has been perverted, perhaps due to undue speed and lack of oversight among those who evangelize the continent most fervently – I have friends who have recently undertaken service and mission trips to various parts of Africa, many of whom return very disturbed at what they’ve found, particularly the lack of love of neighbor taught. It may well be for their best to be cut off from the finances of the western world – while poverty is a curse in many ways, Jesus was right to name it a blessing in terms of true faith. With only God to depend on to keep their churches strong and together, the theology may actually improve. With the example of a Western church willing to stand its ground and accept the loss of division as the price of doing justice and offering mercy to its gay members, and above all loving God through obediance to personal conscience, the greater Anglican church may someday learn. Faint hope, I know, but I can pray, and have certainty that God is moving in this.
posted by kittynboi on
This, of course, being the same Africa that the multicultural “left” loves so much.
posted by Boo on
Relax, they turned the ban down.
posted by Boo on
But now they’ve reversed and agreed to the ban. Cowards.
posted by Mark on
Actually, the policy is not legally binding on any diocese.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The hilarious thing about this whole spectacle is that Akinola, Mr. Bible-Believing Bigot ™, was one of the driving forces behind getting the Anglicans to recognize and honor polygamous marriages.
So yes, Mr. Bible-Believer finds a justification for polygamy, but not gay people, in the Bible. . . hops up on the table to “stand for biblical principles,” and sees no irony at all in the contradictions. Neither do Williams or the other craven leaders in this increasingly irrelevant organization.
My advice to US Episcopalians is to not let old European and primitive third world values set the agenda for your organization. If you do, it will be to your detriment. You’re more than capable of surviving on your own.
posted by kittynboi on
I’m glad someone else is willing to call third world “values” primitive, because they are.
posted by Bobby on
Oh my God, kittynboi, I was about to post the same thing, no kidding. Yeah, it’s about time we put our foot down. Multiculturalism is one thing, putting up with ancient prejudices is something else.
posted by kittynboi on
Well, telling people that multiculturalism has been out of control for a while is something I’ve tried for a while now, but no one listens.
But really; I think that, in some cases, “liberals” who go on about multiculturalism to defend african and middle eastern homophobia are sometimes betraying their own homophobia by doing so.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I agree, kittynboi. I find the values of the Enlightenment to be clearly superior to other systems which seek to exert theocratic control over the personal lives of others, and I don’t mince my words in communicating that belief. Individual liberty and personal freedom is undoubtedly superior to systems which oppress others in the name of religion, “culture,” etc.
What’s funny is that many other systems, such as radical Islamism, make no bones about their belief that their approach is superior to all others. . . and they receive no reprimand from the culturally confused who denounce a personal belief in the superiority of individual liberty as “cultural imperialism.”
Individual liberty is the ultimate antidote to imperialism because it allows individuals to pursue whatever personal belief system they wish to. This threatens “traditional” theocratic institutions because they don’t reinforce their strength through compelling and powerful belief systems that improve lives, but rather through force and fear. Any system which fears a free choice is an oppressive system by design, and nothing to celebrate, laud or defend — no matter what country or individual conceived of it.
posted by kittynboi on
I agree, kittynboi. I find the values of the Enlightenment to be clearly superior to other systems which seek to exert theocratic control over the personal lives of others, and I don’t mince my words in communicating that belief. Individual liberty and personal freedom is undoubtedly superior to systems which oppress others in the name of religion, “culture,” etc.
I concur.
But that position is out of vogue, and has been on the left for some time now, as a result of a number of things, including the African fetish, making the cause of Muslims a top priority, and the desire to reach out to “middle amerikkka” and embrace christerism. That, combined with multiculturalism, the powerful hmophobic black interests of the left, and the perception that gays cost KErry the 2004 election, it’s easy to see how the left is easier and easier on homophobes these days, especially nonwhite ones.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I agree. That’s why it’s important not to call left-leaning culture-fascists “progressives” (as they call themselves). I prefer “leftist regressives” (to differentiate them from their rightist regressive opponents).
The real progressives are the folks who think the best thing government can do to resolve culture clash is let the individual decide. . . and who sees the role of government in the debate solely as an authority to punish those who seek to initiate violence against others as a tool to achieve political ends.