I've been thinking a lot about Anglicans lately, which seems only fair since they have obviously been thinking a lot about me. Not me individually, of course, but me generically-me as a gay man.
As you're probably aware, for the last few years the Anglican Communion has been wracked by conflicts over gays and lesbians as priests and bishops and the issue of whether to bless (much less marry) same-sex partners.
The conflict pits gay-supportive American and Canadian and some British bishops against bishops from Africa and Asia (along with a few fractious American bishops) who are adamantly hostile to granting any rights to gays.
The church recently held its decennial Lambeth Conference, which normally addresses church issues and might have made some determination about all this, but Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams managed to avoid having the conference take any position at all, thus avoiding the possibility of open schism in the church.
Ironically, the anti-gay fundamentalism of the Africans is in some measure the fault of the British and American churches. The British and Americans have supported the missionary work in Africa to convert the populace to Christianity. And both, especially the wealthy Episcopal Church in the U.S., have given the impoverished African churches considerable economic support.
Unfortunately, the missionaries seem to have taught a fairly primitive version of Christianity-stressing the Bible but not the Anglican tradition of the role of reason and compromise. In other words, they gave the Africans and Asians a rule book, and the Africans and Asians have followed it more literally than the British and Americans.
The African bishops are not necessarily well-educated. Many have had little or no seminary training, and little acquaintance with the problems of interpreting biblical texts, nor with reading them in their historical context. They certainly have no grasp of the current research on homosexuality as a basic orientation. And they clearly have no awareness of the native African tradition of homosexuality in the form of mature men with "boy-wives." A well-placed American priest told a friend of mine that some African bishops have little more than an 8th-grade education.
Archbishop Williams' efforts to preserve church unity were not wholly successful. Even though he vowed to uphold traditional (anti-gay) Anglican traditions and went so far as to ban openly gay American bishop Gene Robinson, about 220 of the 880 Anglican bishops met in Jerusalem to form a potentially separatist communion within the Communion and voted to declare that they no longer recognized Williams as the head of the Communion. Yet one wonders what more Williams could have done short of exclaiming, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome bishop?"
Robinson said that Williams even refused to answer his letters. The Apostle Paul wrote that Christians should behave so that the world would say, "How these Christians love one another!" So where is Williams' love? What kind of pastoral concern does Williams show? His actions are neither cordial, nor collegial, nor Christian. They are petty, frightened and small-souled.
It seems to me that Anglican liberals should just allow the Africans and Asians to split off and leave the Anglican Communion, taking their poverty and ignorance with them. The North Americans and British would be well rid of them. What, after all, is the benefit of including people who may nominally be Christians but seem to lack any understanding of what Christianity means?
The only reason to try to keep the Africans and Asians in the Communion would be the hope that eventually the liberals can bring them around on such issues as female priests and homosexuality. But the chances of that happening seem slim. After all, they have their reading of the bible on their side.
Alternatively, the North Americans could withdraw and say, You go your way and we'll go ours. That might rattle some of the Africans who need the American subsidies. And it would certainly rattle Williams, who seems to have given little thought to this possibility.
The Anglican church has a strong sense of history. What Williams is probably doing is trying to stave off any open schism, hoping that things will somehow change over time. In any case, he certainly does not want to enter the history books as the archbishop under whom a major schism occurred.
But after all, the Anglican church was founded in the 16th century by an act of schism. So schism is a venerable part of Anglican history. Who is to say it would be worse than a conflicted and specious "unity"?
15 Comments for “High Time for a Schism”
posted by Bobby on
I agree with the Schism, but I doubt it will happen, white liberals have too much white guilt reject African churches.
posted by bls on
You’re right that there doesn’t seem to be much chance of changing minds on this issue; I’d once thought there would be, but I no longer do.
I should add that American conservatives (they are reactionaries, really) are openly encouraging the so-called “orthodox” bishops around the world. They are just as anti-gay – or, at least, very willing to use this issue as a wedge to try to unseat the “liberals.”
Ho-hum; life as usual in the good ol’ USA….
posted by Pat on
Bobby, I imagine there is “white guilt” which people use to excuse the anti-gay bishops’ behaviors. However, I’ve also seen some (usually conservatives) cry racism to those who criticize these bishops. Sometimes you can’t win.
posted by bls on
Oh, yes indeed, Pat: the race card is now played with fervor and abandon in these discussions – by the “conservatives” (i.e., reactionaries), that is…..
posted by Robert Cromey on
If Canterbury did not call for the conference this year, there would have been hardly of ripple of dissension. The Anglican churches are separate entities and do their work as best they can. Leave it that way. The man and woman in the pew in the US, Britain and villages in Africa don’t give a damn about what the Bishops yammer about anyway.
Robert Warren Cromey
Priest retired, living in San Francisco
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I agree with Paul’s statement that “the missionaries … gave the Africans and Asians a rule book, and the Africans and Asians have followed it more literally than the British and Americans.” Aside from the poor education that Paul cites, these bishops have no appreciation of nor stake in the Enlightenment and no respect for Western freedoms. It is insane for North American and European Anglicans to surrender to such obscurantism in the name of what Paul rightly calls a specious “unity.”
However reluctant the liberal bishops are to face it, there is already a schism in all but name. Post-colonial guilt (which I think is a slightly better characterization than “white guilt”) on the part of liberals amounts to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The very liberalism that motivates their guilt is rejected by the Africans and Asians (or most of them; remember the wonderful Desmond Tutu in South Africa).
Incidentally, I wrote about this two years ago in another article in the IGF collection, A Schism by Any Other Name.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
As a gay Catholic still praying in the pew and married to a racially mixed man, it is troubling to witness the undeniable discord brought forward in the Anglican Church over gay rights and racial leadership of the Church. It seems the legendary intellectual intrasegence of liberals in the Western churches is unable to find common ground with their lesser educated (I can’t believe someone wrote that here), more reactionary black brothers in Africa and brown skinned brothers in Asia.
Is this the great tradition of liberalism –toss aside those who fail to agree to your world view? And to do it to a group of people who differ from you racially and will never catch up to the great Enlightenment and truly understand what being a Christian really means –at least as defined by liberal white elitists.
Wow, it’s stunning. Kind of makes me glad we (Catholics) let the Anglicans follow bonny King Hank into the abyss of self-interest, moral decay and monarchical devotion.
I wish there was a greater opportunity for broadening, enriching the communion of Anglican and Catholic churches, but that can’t happen readily until the racist liberals running the white-half of the Anglican church once again find God and walk in his Grace.
posted by Pat on
Matt, I can’t speak for the “white, liberal” Episcopalian Church, but your characterization of their reacting to the homophobia of the hard line as racism played right out Johnny Cochran’s playbook. There is no evidence that the “liberal” Episcopalian’s would want to break away if these church’s were merely unaccepting of homosexuality. It appears to be much more than that. Also, it’s these church’s that wish to break away, with some of the American homophobic churches wanting to join them. Despite all that, it does appear the “liberal” churches are still trying to find common ground.
Anyway, Matt, you’ve shown zero evidence of racism, while failing to condemn clear evidence of homophobia by the breakaway churches.
And once again, we have a situation where “white liberals” are wrong when they condemn homophobia enough in places such as Africa or the Middle East, and are wrong (and as a bonus, racist) when they condemn homophobia in these places. Well, I give up trying to win, and will consistently condemn homophobia where it exists. I won’t excuse it when it’s done by Islam, Christianity, or any other institution.
I wish there was a greater opportunity for broadening, enriching the communion of Anglican and Catholic churches, but that can’t happen readily until the racist liberals running the white-half of the Anglican church once again find God and walk in his Grace.
Besides the misplaced bigotry, maybe it’s the Catholic Church that needs to “find God and walk in His Grace.” I’m not sure when the Catholic Church will be ready to give up their stances on women priesthood, and their public gay bigotry. It seems backwards that for two religious communities to come together for one of them to turn back the clock and accept injustice, inequality, and bigotry.
Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand, I do think you make a fair point about the two factions being able to work it out. Perhaps they still can, without succumbing to bigotry and hate. But as Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a document, it sometimes is necessary for two subgroups within one to break it off. If two subgroups concepts of “find[ing] God and walk[ing] in His Grace” are so much different, perhaps they should.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, you claim I offered no proof of racism in the Anglican Church. Right you are; I didn?t. But I didn?t know that was a requirement now? your claim is sort of like the new gotcha game around blogs that if you don?t provide a link to whatever controversial point is made, then it can?t be true. That’s kind of internet-centric, isn’t it?
Of course, it would be easy for you to google ?racism? and ?anglican? –toss out the references to discussions about American slavery reparation and few other topics– and you?d have a good nightstand trove of readings for bedtime.
But hitting the major points on why I think the schism is more than just about bringing some recalcitrant, under-educated foreigners to heel with modern liberal sensitivities on gay rights.
MM-partner and I have gotten to know a local Episcopal cleric who is active in the Union of Black Episcopalians… a worldwide group of black Anglicans working against institutional racism in their church and society? but, as he puts it, there?s enough work for a lifetime just within the E-church?s leadership ?save the pews for later. He argues that 11AM on Sunday may be the single most racially segregated hour in the American E-church and, he also thinks, in the worldwide E-church. He argues that in the US there are over 8,200 E-church parishes? only 7 have black priests in charge of a mostly white parish.
Further, he points out that the Anglicans now account for something like 77.3m members worldwide and has grown to a decidedly non-white majority; as an expert he contends that the charge of gay discrimination is a cover for racism in the leadership. One of three books he gave us on our anniversary was a book by noted Anglican writer Jonathan Petre (sp?) and in the book is a forward by the leader of the Anglicans (Dr Sentamu) who chides the Anglican Church and its leadership for institutional racism and presents the claim that racism is a deadly poison in their Church? which HE leads.
But you?re right, Pat. I didn?t provide proof that racism is at heart in the Anglican church in the talk about schism. I think the schism has more to do with white liberal gay activists trying to maintain a beachhead in religious tolerance which is under attack by unsupportive, largely non-white Anglicans.
Now, we can disagree that what?s playing behind the scenes in the liberal elitism of the white leadership of their church today. But, honestly, do we need to look any farther than the inherently racist statements of some here who offer the black and asian Anglican brothers aren?t as ?educated? as they are? that they don?t share our ?Western values?? Pat, you gotta admit that if a Republican or conservative or religious Right fundamentalist ever ?EVER- said anything like that about a racial minority, the liberals here and elsewhere would be on their self-appointed high horse of morality clucking like the sky was falling all around us because of those racist comments.
But liberals can do it here and it?s just the truth, just the facts? Sure. And if Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition treated the record of hiring inside the E-church like Jackson does corporate entities he targets for corporate blackmail with charges of racism, the E-church would be bankrupt by the settlement. There is the pesky little problem of white liberal elitist parishes in the US talking the talk about diversity and ending discrimination against gays, but not walking the walk when it comes to promoting minority clergy within their own ranks ?a place where local control is the greatest.
In my home parish, since we?ve been here, we?ve had 7 minority associate priests and 5 have been moved into the pastor?s chair at other Catholic parishes by our Catholic Priests Senate. Our Anglican cleric friend thinks that?s a record his own church ought to have bypassed long, long ago. In fact our anniversary celebration was presided over by a former Vietnamese priest who was at our parish for 3 years and has his own parish of 700 families now.
Tolerance has never been a family value amongst white liberals and it sure isn?t when it comes to gay Anglicans fighting to preserve their slight claim to societal validation. I?m a progressive and frankly appalled by the elitism shown here at IGF these last few threads ?while bashing Catholics is raised to an Olympic sport by some.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
And, just to be clear Pat, I also condemn gay discrimination whether it’s inside the Catholic Church, Anglicans or elsewhere in religion.
I appreciate that you think the Roman Catholic Church has a way to go on this score, but what can one do in an exclusively authoritarian structure overpopulated with gay priests?
I guess for now, pray they come to their senses and continue to support their employment in the Church. At least the Catholics aren’t homophobic in their leadership’s composition, eh?
posted by vbmom on
I am one of those conservative Episcopalians who is tired of the fights between the E church and the rest of the Anglican communion. I would love to see the split come just so everyone can more forward on their own paths.
The issue does not come from homosexuality in the E church. It’s the American church’s gradual reinterpretation of Scripture and Anglican tradition. It’s been creeping along like this for decades. Gene Robinson’s election just brought it all to a head in the mainstream media. It used to be that you could go into almost any Episcopal church in the United States and know you’d be worshipping Christ the same way with everyone around you. Now, you might walk in one and hear that Jesus isn’t necessarily the son of God or that He isn’t the only way to heaven. Or you might walk in and find out that the baptismal font is not even located inside the church b/c the church doesn’t want to “offend” anyone who might not be a Christian. (California church. Or you might hear the woman priest who claims she is both a Muslim and a Christian. Or you might walk in and hear NOT ONE WORD about Jesus and many words about Buddah or crystals or the “New Earth.” (there is an Episcopal “church” in Maryland called The Journey’s Community who is doing just these things, and the MD Diocese allows it). That is all fine and dandy, but all those things have nothing to do with traditional Christian worship, that’s all. They’re all New Age teachings, not traditional Episcopal or Christian teachings. That is all the conservatives are saying. While I’m sure there are individuals who are homophobic(just as there are in other groups), as a GROUP we aren’t homophobic. We love everyone as God loved us and believe everyone in this world has their paths and struggles in life. I believe that God gave us free will and the choices and directions we take are ultitmately between God and man. At the same time, the Episcopal church as a whole should not be shy about what scripture says. Some scripture offends the secular worldview and it’s each individual’s job to decide what he/she believes.
Basically what I am rambling on about is that if the E church wants teach New Age, then they should break off and move on. The conservatives should not be seen as homophobic just because we believe what we do. We aren’t the ones who left the church. The church left us.
posted by Pat on
Pat, you claim I offered no proof of racism in the Anglican Church. Right you are; I didn?t. But I didn?t know that was a requirement now? your claim is sort of like the new gotcha game around blogs that if you don?t provide a link to whatever controversial point is made, then it can?t be true. That’s kind of internet-centric, isn’t it?
Matt, of course, you or anyone else here is not required to provide proof for any statement made. But you made a charge of racism when it didn’t appear anywhere in your argument that racism had anything to do with the conflict. In fact, there are conservative Anglican churches (with, I assume, mostly White members) who would break away with these African churches. So while it appears that there are different world views going on here, it doesn’t appear that racial difference is the factor causing the split.
Anyway, I’ve seen the charge of racism regarding this issue before, and in that case, the poster made no attempt to explain the racism other than the fact that rift involved American churches vs. African churches. But you’ve explained the charge, and it’s something I will have to look into when I get more time. For the moment, it seems that the rift isn’t clearly cut along racial lines, but rather along the issue of acceptance of homosexuality.
Oh, I couldn’t agree more about your point about links. I guess we both encountered posters who provide a weak, logically flawed argument, only to follow it up with a link or two that do not support their point. And continue to repeat the false statements and provide more links that don’t support the statement. Someone has to come up with a name for that, if there isn’t one already.
Now, we can disagree that what?s playing behind the scenes in the liberal elitism of the white leadership of their church today. But, honestly, do we need to look any farther than the inherently racist statements of some here who offer the black and asian Anglican brothers aren?t as ?educated? as they are? that they don?t share our ?Western values?? Pat, you gotta admit that if a Republican or conservative or religious Right fundamentalist ever ?EVER- said anything like that about a racial minority, the liberals here and elsewhere would be on their self-appointed high horse of morality clucking like the sky was falling all around us because of those racist comments.
First of all, charges of hypocrisy that liberals and conservatives sling at each other are irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. So the question is if the statement that African bishops/priests are less educated than American bishops/priests is racist. I suppose it could be, but it seems that in order for it to be racist, the person stating it would either know or assume it’s false without evidence, and the person making the statement was trying to imply something else. If the person is simply trying to imply that the more educated a person is, the less likely they will be anti-gay, then it would seem to me that the person is not being racist. Then one could argue the merits of that statement.
while bashing Catholics is raised to an Olympic sport by some.
First of all, this bashing extends to many other Christian religions as well as other religions. Right or wrong, productive or not, is it really a surprise that many persons in a community would bash an institution that regards them in ways ranging from immoral, inferior, depraved, etc., simply for being a member of that community? In other words, many people respond to being bashed by bashing back. Is it the Christian thing to do? No, on both sides. But that’s the way things are now.
As for myself, I’m not afraid to criticize religion, and sometimes use strong words, in the same way that I would not be afraid to criticize any other institution. Religion doesn’t deserve any more or any less respect or reverence than any other institution. As for religious persons, they are also not exempt from criticism, when warranted. I do not excuse a person who is anti-gay who uses their religion to justify it, especially to those who live in a free society. NO ONE in a free society should automatically buy ANY religious doctrine any more than any one should automatically buy any part of a political party’s agenda.
Just to give some personal background, I was baptized a Roman Catholic. After a difference of philosophy between my mother and the priest (involving birth control), we joined a Byzantine Melkite Catholic church for about three years. Never a religious, church going family. Although I consider myself a Christian (and leave it to others how they want to define me, I don’t care), I don’t belong to any organized religion. I’ve thought about joining one, or even going back to the Catholic church, but for the moment, any church I would belong to would have to be accepting of gay persons. The “love the sinner, hate the sin,” mantra is unacceptable to me.
I have present and former colleagues that are priests and sisters, and most of them are wonderful. Some of them know that I am gay, are accepting, and even met my partner.
I appreciate that you think the Roman Catholic Church has a way to go on this score,
I should have also said that in other areas of social justice, they are very good. For example, their opposition to the death penalty, their opposition to the Iraq war. (Of course, persons may not view these things as “very good.”)
but what can one do in an exclusively authoritarian structure overpopulated with gay priests?
I guess for now, pray they come to their senses and continue to support their employment in the Church.
Interesting stuff. But the point you are trying to make went over my head. Please explain.
At least the Catholics aren’t homophobic in their leadership’s composition, eh?
Not so sure about that. One thing I did get in the previous statement that there is a significant percentage of gay priests. However, I’ve only heard of one that was openly gay. Sure, there may be some that don’t exactly hide their orientation. Heck, I’ve met two priests in a gay bar. But as far as I know, they are not open to their congregation. So what this does is allow those Catholics who are gay supportive to not wince when they figure out that their pastor is gay. But those who would be uncomfortable are content (except possibly for an obsessive one here and there) to not bother figuring out he is gay, and assume he is straight. Hey, somehow Paul Lynde and Liberace managed to do that.
Now, you might walk in one and hear that Jesus isn’t necessarily the son of God or that He isn’t the only way to heaven. Or you might walk in and find out that the baptismal font is not even located inside the church b/c the church doesn’t want to “offend” anyone who might not be a Christian. (California church. Or you might hear the woman priest who claims she is both a Muslim and a Christian. Or you might walk in and hear NOT ONE WORD about Jesus and many words about Buddah or crystals or the “New Earth.”
Actually, Vbmom, I find this kind of refreshing and a positive effect of having a free society. Okay, I don’t get the person being both Muslim and Christian thing, but I’m find with everything else. If the faith is strong, questioning it can only make it stronger. In other words, if the only thing the religion’s faith is going for it is to demand its adherents to not think or question it, then you really don’t have much, do you? Besides, being someone with a partner who is Jewish, it would be hard for me to say that Jesus is the only way to heaven.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, the purpose of my comment wasn’t to indicate it wasn’t necessary for me personally to provide documented links in triplicate in order to even have standing here… the point was your comment about “Anyway, Matt, you’ve shown ZERO (my emphasis) evidence of racism, while failing to condemn clear evidence of homophobia by the breakaway churches.”
Like I’ve explained to King Richard Rosendall and PriyaLynn and, now, you unfortunately Pat, I don’t do the “jump through YOUR hoop game” that others here might be willing to play with you three.
No, Pat, there is no requirement for me to make an obvious statement condemning anti-gay bias in the Anglican Church. I did; but there’s no requirement as you seem to imply exists.
And no, there’s no requirement for me to prove rampant racism in the Anglican Church when the frickin’ LEADER of the church in England says it is so. Gheez, I wish people here playing the “jump through MY hoop” game would take a second and grab a dose of reality once in a while. You included, Pat.
OK, I understand from your statement you are ignorant about the long, well-documented racial problems in the Anglican Church. How’s this for a turn of fair play: Pat, please prove that you didn’t know that the racism was extant in order for YOU to be believed? Kind of rough to do, eh Pat? We only have your word for it… got a link? Got triple links? Got a link that backs up the link?
See, the notion you raised about my not providing a statement condemning anti-gay policies and proof that racism exists in the Anglican Church is the only thing that’s irrelevant as far as I see.
You contend that the very fact our liberal, white commenters here who said black churches aren’t as educated as they are, don’t share their western (read ‘liberal-only’) values isn’t racist fails even to pass muster of the standards for determining racism in the Canandian, American, British or Australian Anglican Churchs… I know you love linking “proof”, so take a look at the representational language in the Canadian E-church here
http://www2.anglican.ca/about/cogs/arwg/charter.htm
Pay close attention to how these E-church folks define racism, Pat. It’s not YOUR standard of “what did they know and when did they know it”… it’s about one race thinking it is innately superior to another… they aren’t as educated as we, they don’t share our values. Kind of sounds like their facts are innately superior, no?
Of course, it ignores the fact that nearly 93.5% of African and Asian bishops in the major Anglican sects have attended theological studies in the UK or Canada. Oooops.
It isn’t about hypocrisy, Pat, as you like to argue. It’s about bigoted statements along racial lines by people who know a lot, lot better than that. Right, I know, next up will be “Matt, please prove that these people knew they were being bigots when they wrote those racially insensitive and bigoted statements. Please provide links, too.”
You write: “Not so sure about that. One thing I did get in the previous statement that there is a significant percentage of gay priests. However, I’ve only heard of one that was openly gay. Sure, there may be some that don’t exactly hide their orientation.” The priests in Catholic Church take this little ol’ vow of celibacy… they aren’t in the business of presenting their sexual preferences to their congregation… they are not supposed to be concerned with how that gay identity alters their priestly mission. It shouldn’t, unless they are drawn into sexual acts and that’s kind-of, sort-of a no-no to them. Being a gay priest may help a priest understand a Dignity meeting better, but it isn’t relevant to his priestly mission as far as the Church, bishops or priests are concerned.
And no, before the Catholic-bashing bigots here jump on the Church for denying these men their true expressions of self, you can be gay and still be celibate. Sexual promiscuity may be a big part of the gay culture, but it doesn’t need to animate all gay men.
The point I was making about the high number of gay priests in the Catholic Church and church leadership, especially the Curia and diocesan curia, sort makes the argument that the Church is homophobic stand on its head.
Just like the selection of a minority as the Anglcian Church’s prelate doesn’t make racism as an operative force go away for Anglicans.
I can tell you that our E-priest friend is convinced that the row between the liberal elitist white Anglicans and the sub-human and innately inferior asian and african brothers is all about race. The progressive gay-affirming policies are merely a cover.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I’m surprised no one has commented on THIS yet:
The African bishops are not necessarily well-educated. […] And they clearly have no awareness of the native African tradition of homosexuality in the form of mature men with “boy-wives.”
Hey, here’s a wild thought: Could it be that the African bishops are homophobic because they are all too aware of the “boy-wife” tradition?
Alternative possibility: the Anglican bishops in Africa are unaware of the “boy-wife” tradition not because they lack formal education, but because they have absolutely no ethnic/cultural ties to the African people(s) that practiced this particular type of homosexual coupling. I mean, sheesh, would it make a milligram of sense to say that Swedish pop legend Agnetha Faltskog “clearly has no awareness of the native Eurasian tradition of origami”?
posted by Pat on
Okay, Matt. I’ll attribute much of the disagreement to miscommunication. Because as I’m reading through these comments, we seem to be in agreement in most of the points here. I apologize for my part in any miscommunication.
I don’t mind being taken task for things I’ve said, but get frustrated when it’s for things I didn’t say.
You made a charge of racism against the liberal White Episcopalians. I inferred, apparently incorrectly, that it had to do with the fact that they disagreed with the African bishops homophobia. Since I did not view that as racist, I challanged you on that point. Once you explained that there were additional or underlying reasons for the racism, I accepted it. Not only did I not insist on links, I put the burden on myself. Thus, we apparently agree that noting the African bishops are homophobic is not racist. So I did not ask you to provide any links. Not only that, I agreed with you about people misusing links and ridiculed posters who do such a thing.
Pat, the purpose of my comment wasn’t to indicate it wasn’t necessary for me personally to provide documented links in triplicate in order to even have standing here
I don’t know what to tell you. I re-read your reply, and at the very least, seemed part of the purpose. I even looked at it as if you were serious, or if you were being sarcastic. Okay, fine. I misinterpreted it.
No, Pat, there is no requirement for me to make an obvious statement condemning anti-gay bias in the Anglican Church. I did; but there’s no requirement as you seem to imply exists.
Okay, good. So that statement is obvious to both of us. What was NOT obvious to me at the time was that you condemned the anti-gay bias in the Anglican Church.
NDT and I disagree on a lot of issues, and I’m not particularly fond of some of his argumentation. However, one thing I do like is when he does play what you call “jump through the hoop game.” Even when it’s a gothca thing, trying to pin me down, or him trying to get me to agree with something that’s obvious to him. It enables me to see that we actually agree on a significant part of the issue, and we don’t end up wasting time on arguing over something we agree on.
So when you did kindly state that you condemned the anti-gay bias, it was no longer necessary (I thought) to continue arguing that. So I’m not trying to play gotcha. I’m not trying to have you jump through hoops. I was simply trying to clarify this point, to see if this was a point of disagreement between us.
And also, “obvious” is many times in the eye of the beholder. For example, it’s obvious to me that the Democrats are better than Republicans on gay rights issues, but it’s not obvious to you. In fact, you disagree with this statement. My point is not to debate this issue on this thread, but to simply state that two people don’t always see the same thing as obvious.
But as you stated, it’s up to you whether you want to answer any questions I have, or clarify any points.
OK, I understand from your statement you are ignorant about the long, well-documented racial problems in the Anglican Church. How’s this for a turn of fair play: Pat, please prove that you didn’t know that the racism was extant in order for YOU to be believed? Kind of rough to do, eh Pat? We only have your word for it… got a link? Got triple links? Got a link that backs up the link?
Again, I restate that I don’t require links. But besides that, there is a big difference between making a charge of racism and claiming to not know the extant of racism. I believe that a charge of racism should be subjected to at least some kind of explanation for it. If you really did believe (but from your point appears you don’t) that I should be challenged for not knowing about racism in the Episcopal church, then by all means, do so.
You contend that the very fact our liberal, white commenters here who said black churches aren’t as educated as they are, don’t share their western (read ‘liberal-only’) values isn’t racist fails even to pass muster of the standards for determining racism in the Canandian, American, British or Australian Anglican Churchs
First of all, Matt, what I view as racist may be different than what the Episcopal Church views as racism (which, of course, may be a problem in and of itself). But taking the Church’s view of it, “it’s about one race thinking it is innately superior to another” I don’t necessarily see that when someone says that African bishops generally have eighth grade education. This does not mean that one race is “innately” superior to another. It could mean, that due to circumstances beyond their control, they were not able to receive higher education.
On the other hand, you have stated a source indicated that almost all of these bishops have received higher education. So that conflicts with the other statement. And depending on the motives of the person making the former statement, I can see how the person making it could be racist. I don’t see the former statement, in and of itself, as racist. Maybe you agree, maybe you don’t.
It isn’t about hypocrisy, Pat, as you like to argue.
When you brought up the issue, you were the one who brought up the hypocrisy of the “liberals here and elsewhere.” I’m the one who said the hypocrisy is irrelevant.
The priests in Catholic Church take this little ol’ vow of celibacy… they aren’t in the business of presenting their sexual preferences to their congregation… they are not supposed to be concerned with how that gay identity alters their priestly mission. It shouldn’t, unless they are drawn into sexual acts and that’s kind-of, sort-of a no-no to them. Being a gay priest may help a priest understand a Dignity meeting better, but it isn’t relevant to his priestly mission as far as the Church, bishops or priests are concerned.
I know about the vow of celibacy, and I agree with your points here. But because of that, the congregations, the bishops, etc., are not necessarily, and perhaps, most likely not know the sexual orientation of their priests.
And no, before the Catholic-bashing bigots here jump on the Church for denying these men their true expressions of self, you can be gay and still be celibate. Sexual promiscuity may be a big part of the gay culture, but it doesn’t need to animate all gay men.
I know all too well that it’s possible to be gay and celibate.
The point I was making about the high number of gay priests in the Catholic Church and church leadership, especially the Curia and diocesan curia, sort makes the argument that the Church is homophobic stand on its head.
Okay, this is where we disagree. You made the point above that gay priests don’t let on to their sexual orientation. So when they become priests, the Church doesn’t know that they ordained a gay person. Also, being gay and being homophobic is not mutually exclusive. So whether 20%, 50%, or 80% of the priests are gay, it doesn’t change the fact that the church position on homosexuality is rather negative. With all these gay priests (some who go on to becoming bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and perhaps higher) in the Church, the Church’s position is still negative on homosexuality, gay persons are expected to remain celibate. And the ones who do have sex, well, there’s always, “love the sinner, hate the sin.” You may belong to a more accepting church, but that is still an exception to established policy.