"The full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians is the most serious threat to the life of the Communion says Kenneth Kearon."
But a careful reading of the post yields this key phrase, citing Kearon:
"the aim has not been to get at the Episcopal Church, but to find room for others to remain ..."
So, the question before the Communion is not whether the most serious threat it faces is the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians, but whether it is able to move forward together seeking faithful answers to doctrinal, ethical and pastoral questions it faces in an ever changing world.
Which inclusion will lead the Communion? The 'full inclusion' of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians or the full inclusion of as many current member churches as possible? When the 'full inclusion' of the former means the extending of the Anglican understanding of marriage to include two men or two women, and the breaking open of the standard of marriage or singleness for the episcopacy, the Communion is entitled to ask of itself whether that 'full inclusion' should be pursued at the expense of the other full inclusion, the full inclusion of as many member churches as possible. That inclusion is worth considering because it offers the possibility of Anglicans moving forward together, albeit too slowly for some, to seek answers to doctrinal, ethical and pastoral questions, faithful to our responsibilities to Scripture and tradition.
After all, let's remember that a fair amount of inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians in Western Anglican churches was going on before 2003. None of which pushed the Communion to the point of breakdown. It has been the 'final push' towards 'full inclusion' as defined, not by the Communion itself, but by groups within the Communion that has brought us to this point. Moreover it has brought us to the point where we are now very polarised on homosexuality, to a point I suggest where it is very difficult to address together the important concerns Colin Coward reminds us of in his post: the widespread and dangerous homophobia across many nations in which the Anglican church is represented.
Are we now at a point where we face a 'worst case scenario' in which we have Hobson's choice between pursuit of 'full inclusion' as sought by Changing Attitudes et al with inevitable breakdown of the Communion into which inclusion is aimed, or full inclusion of as many member churches as possible in a Communion too polarised to deal with homophobia?
I hope we are not facing Hobson's choice; that ++Rowan's lead is making space for a full Communion to remain together in order to move forward together.
For my own church I believe that we are at a point where we are more together than divided, in a better position to work together on our doctrinal, ethical and pastoral responsibilities. That was not the case a few years ago. Things can change. The centre can hold.
11 comments:
It is evident that we cannot realistically have the "full inclusion of LGBT people" across the Communion, because some provinces, such as Uganda and Nigeria would not even begin to consider this. It seems an uphill battle to get them even to condemn the most blatant violence and persecution, and there are complex issues given the surrounding non-Christian culture and the accusations of colonialism.
I do not see that given that there are such polarised views across the Communion, that it is right to say that TEC(and other places) must excluded LGBT people and wait until everyone is on board. I do think we should accept different views and practices on this issue. I am sorry that Canterbury thinks otherwise, especially as it exposes such rank hypocrisy given the tacit acceptance of actively gay priests and bishops with the Church of England.
Hi Suem,
My responsive questions - questions to the whole Communion rather than personally to you - are:
(1) Uphill though certain battles are, are they easier to envisage winning in the long-term if we remain together as a Communion?
(2) Is 'exclusionary' the best term to sum up a request to maintain a moratorium which extends only to the matters of episcopacy and blessings?
(3) Who are these bishops in the Church of England who are allegedly 'actively gay' ... a claim made not only by you on the internet? (It seems extraordinary in this day of bold media that there are actively gay bishops not yet outed ... my point being not that I wish to see anyone outed by an intrusive press, but that I wonder if the claim holds up to closer scrutiny).
1. It depends HOW we stay together as a Communion. If staying together means that, as Colin says, love between gay people is demonised above all else, how can we have the grounds to challenge homophobic hatred?
2.I don't think that request or constraint on TEC is reasonable, or at least, I think demonising them when they say, "In all integrity we must walk this path" is exclusionary - or rather plain wrong.
3.The British media doesn't really "out" people anymore, and if you remember the outcry over the Peter Tatchell "outing" of several bishops, he faced a lot of criticism. There is also a strong "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the Church which means that only certain people know and "proof" would be hard to find. The church also would shrink from it as to discipline would make martyrs of gay priests and the Church would lose sympathy. There have been some articles in gay magazines "outing" bishops. The Brits largely don't care and the Church wants things hushed up.
Hi Suem,
I agree that how we stay together as a Communion is very important. While all sorts of things get said on the media (so one cannot deny that someone somewhere is 'demonizing' TEC) I think what is generally happening is that TEC is being criticized, not demonized.
I take your point that even the British media can show restraint, but I would still hesitate myself to presume that the C of E is rankly hypocritical re bishops!
It is only what I have heard from talking to openly gay priests and from hearing them talk about more closeted gay priests that they know. I personally only know one gay bishop, but have heard other names mentioned. I might, of course, be making all of this up and everyone in the Cofe is heterosexual.
I shall leave it for you to decide.
There are no 'openly gay' bishops in the Church of England. A couple are known to have a gay background but none is known to be 'partnered' - unlike some prominent cathedral canons and deans, who have entered civil partnerships or unions.
Tatchell was hardly criticized at all for his antics.
Al Mynors
I did not say there are "openly" gay bishops in the C of E. It would be impossible, as we saw from the Jeffrey John affair. Only those who remain closeted can be appointed as bishops.
"When Peter Tatchell threatened Archbishop David Hope with "outing" in 1995 as part of the much criticized outrage! campaign, Hope acknowledged that his sexuality was "a grey area" and that he had "sought to lead a celibate life" and was "perfectly happy and content".
You see that the source above refers to Tatchell's "much criticised outrage campaign". I remember at the time how much sympathy Tatchell lost over this, among people from many backgrounds. Tatchell said himself that it was "disastrous" for him and for his campaigning.
By the way Peter, the name of the group of which Colin Coward is director is Changing Attitude ( singular, not plural.)
Suem, it isn't news to anyone that a few English bishops are sexually attracted to men (or that more than a few are attracted to other men's wives). But if you mean that some are living in covert homosexual relationships, then you should say so openly. Otherwise it's just gossipy tittle tattle.
Al Mynors
Hi Suem,
While appreciating your comment in your latest comment sent here, I do not think I should publish it when it contains a sentence speculating on the action or actions of a named person which is unsubstantiated from another printed (and not sued) source!
Thanks Peter, that is probably wise. It is a duplication of another source, I would never name anyone I knew , on several grounds - and that is what conservatives rely on!
If people want to believe that all gay bishops in the C of E are celibate and always have been, that is their perogative.
Decide for yourself whether to publish this comment, or leave it at that, but please, in all honesty, ask yourself in your heart of hearts what you think!
Post a Comment