This video may be a bit long to watch in toto for busy people ...
... but it is interesting in a couple of respects. One is that listening carefully to some comments I realise that TEC is not as clearly and confidently the 'gay church' (of Bishop Gene Robinson's description) as some conservative commentators observe. But it is getter closer to being so.
The second point of interest is the utter confidence and certainty that gay is okay for the church expressed by some of the more famous TEC voices, the epitome of which might be this point in Bishop Barbara Harris' sermon:
"“Don’t initiate someone and then act like they’re half-ass baptized.”"
That's got me thinking a little.
Across the Communion (and ACNA) we have a range of views re homosexuality from the certain it's okay to the certain it's not okay with variations in between, some of which would emphasise 'the need for more study', others the general ambiguity of understanding God's will which is clear on the dignity of all human beings and clear on the prescription for people desiring to be obedient to that will, 'marriage or celibacy'. Then there would be others (including myself) who worry that saying 'yes' to gay relationships necessarily means a significant revision of Christian doctrine of 'marriage'. Still others can accept a place for TEC in the Communion and places for pro-gay clergy, local churches, and theologies within individual member churches of the Communion, but worry that by not making this place together, the Communion will be irrevocably torn asunder. Lastly, but not exhaustively, we might note those who believe a pastoral response can be made to gay and lesbian Christians which falls short of affirmation of same-sex blessings and denies that this constitutes an expression of homophobia!
But let me here focus a sentence or two on the ones who are 'certain' of their views (on one side and the other). Would it be impertinent of me to raise the question whether each side understands carefully and creatively the other side? When one side slings the arrow of 'homophobia', is that a response which exhibits true understanding of the theology, motivations, and depth of love of God and of fellow human beings of the targets of that word? Conversely, when one side slings the arrows of 'heresy' or 'unbiblical', is that a response which exhibits true understanding of the theology, motivations, and depth of love of God and of fellow human beings of the targets of those words?
Could we resolve the dilemma we are in as a Communion if we listened to each other, with as many blinkers and blindspots removed as possible?