tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post2385845316717172650..comments2024-03-13T13:25:52.881+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Archbishop of York not listening to the Holy SpiritPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-63429572423274810432012-02-03T15:54:16.455+13:002012-02-03T15:54:16.455+13:00Thank you, Suem, for such a gracious comment in re...Thank you, Suem, for such a gracious comment in response to my comments/questions. And my apologies for taxing everyone's patience. I appreciate the help in the midst of my own struggles.Fr. Bryan Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040773309359417883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18058722202857405112012-02-03T10:35:31.414+13:002012-02-03T10:35:31.414+13:00Maybe you know more about "progressives"...Maybe you know more about "progressives" than I do. I guess there are different shades of "progressive" just as there is not just one type of "conservative". I am not sure I support "unfettered" LGBT rights - I support equal rights for LGBT people. Is that the same thing? I don't think opposing gay marriage is "wrong" in the same way that supporting slavery is wrong, although it would depend how someone opposed gay marriage and how they supported slavery. (You might argue we all support slavery by buying food and goods that have passed through a chain that involves sweat shops and unfair wages tantamount to slave labour and often involving the exploitation of children?) Moral questions are difficult to judge, at times they are context bound. As to your hypothetical pastor who loves and supports the gay person but won't (out of conscience) bless his or her CP - I don't necessarily think such a person is "homophobic" and I would hesitate to call them that. (I think you would have to understand that it would be a great act of grace and maturity on the part of the gay person to not feel hurt or rejected though.) I do actually know people who are opposed to gay relationships and I know gay people who feel the same (and so are celibate.)They include some very dear friends and I can't go bandying words like "homophobic" or "self loathing" around concerning them.Suemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03128736092253293640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10525831171318192182012-02-02T21:53:56.779+13:002012-02-02T21:53:56.779+13:00Well, Bryan, I don't know whether this is some...Well, Bryan, I don't know whether this is some sort of trick question but here goes:<br /><br />If the person you speak of - (the pastor) is refusing to bless the same-sex union of his gay friend, then he is simply not in favour of blessing same-sex unions - most probably because he hates the whole idea of gays having their own special relationships OR, his particluar demonination forbids him to bless gay relationships.<br /><br />It may be a case of what he sees as Love the 'sinner', hate the 'sin' - But that would be his view - and the view of his denomination, that he feels he must respect, more than he cares to respect the innate, natural sexuality of his Gay friend.<br /><br />In either case, he's still phobic about gay sexuality - whatever you might like to call the problem.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-2881879581584395432012-02-02T17:48:20.160+13:002012-02-02T17:48:20.160+13:00Thanks again, Fr. Ron. Although I'm still not ...Thanks again, Fr. Ron. Although I'm still not clear from your response as to the exact meanings of "homophobic" and "anti-gay," much less how they are similar and different.<br /><br />Speaking of the term "homophobic," I've come across a blog posting that may be of interest entitled "<a href="http://woodsydude-gkcrocks.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-term-homophobic-is-bogus.html" rel="nofollow">Why the Term 'Homophobic' is Bogus</a>." The author may be on the wrong track, but it's an interesting posting nonetheless.<br /><br />But to get back your comments. <br /><br />Fr. Ron, what would you say about a pastor who has a friend, parishioner, or near relative that is intrinsically homosexual, who befriends and ministers to that person's needs, who does not spurn or reject that person because of insecurity or fears of the unknown (especially given that this person is in a close and loving pastoral relationship with this particular homosexual person), and yet who <i>still opposes</i> the blessing of same-sex unions. And furthermore would be willing to refuse to bless the union of <i>the particular homosexual person that he/she was in a close pastoral relationship with</i> should that person ask for such a blessing.<br /><br />Is the pastor in question "homophobic"? Is he/she "anti-gay"?Fr. Bryan Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040773309359417883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-86378837087422581412012-02-02T15:23:14.529+13:002012-02-02T15:23:14.529+13:00I suppose, Bryan, in answer to your last question,...I suppose, Bryan, in answer to your last question, that the quaslifying noun 'phobia' attached to any other word might indicate a charcateristic of both fear and opposition - such as xeno-phobia, which measn fear of and opposition to, foreigners.<br /><br />In the context of homophobia, I think homophobes may have what I would consider to be, not only a cultural opposition to homsexuality, but also a fear of their own insecurity on this issue. Fear often arises from a problem with the unknown. <br /><br />If you have a near relative who is intrinsically homosexual (or LBT), you learn to live with the reality of that - rather than judging them for what they experience as their natural God-given sexuality. You simply couldn't talk them out of it if you wanted to - or if your, or their, life depended on it. That is my experience.<br /><br />Once one recognises the reality, there is no need for opposition to, or fear of, the copndition.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-4491577049054826452012-02-02T12:34:25.680+13:002012-02-02T12:34:25.680+13:00Thank you, Fr. Ron.
Perhaps I've misundersto...Thank you, Fr. Ron. <br /><br />Perhaps I've misunderstood, but how exactly is the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman homophobic and anti-gay? And how exactly is a refusal to preside over a same-sex blessing homophobic and anti-gay? (I note, BTW, that some clergy are unwilling to preside over same-sex blessings - not because they think such blessings are intrinsically wrong - but because they believe that doing so would further fracture an already deeply divided Communion.)<br /><br />Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify the definitions of "homophobic" and "anti-gay." Are they the same thing? Do they differ?Fr. Bryan Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040773309359417883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57180349611143422132012-02-02T11:21:53.759+13:002012-02-02T11:21:53.759+13:00I'm glad to see, Bryan, that you seem to agree...I'm glad to see, Bryan, that you seem to agree with me on the 'moral viciousness' on the part of the Anglican Church of Uganda's suppport of their government's persecution of Gays.<br /><br />I do also, on the other hand, see your point in questioning - from your point of view - TEC's desire not to enshrine homophobia in the Church by encouraging the admission of anti-Gay candidates for ordination. However, that is not persecution, but it is admittedly, 'discrimination' - that I would consider 'positive', and you, presumably, 'negative'. Fair enough. But at least not 'Morally vicious' - and therefore open to nuanced response.<br /><br />Thank you for being reasonable.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-64999096210715199502012-02-02T08:51:25.961+13:002012-02-02T08:51:25.961+13:00Suem, the nuance to which I refer is different fro...Suem, the nuance to which I refer is different from the one that you refer to. I'm pointing to a difference in methodology between anti-gay Ugandans and anti-traditionalist Episcopalians. You are pointing to the ABY's opposition to gay marriage and the response you would give to that opposition. From what I can tell, your response is to disagree with him but to do so in a manner that doesn't make strong judgments about the vice or virtue of his position or character. <br /><br />If I've understood you correctly, I find that commendable. But that is also a deviation from what the "progressive" moral logic employed by others who support "full, unfettered gay and lesbian rights" requires. <br /><br />The "progressive" moral logic I've been citing maintains that insofar as opposing gay marriage is analogous to affirming slavery, such opposition is not merely morally wrong; for if such opposition is, indeed, akin to supporting slavery, it is necessarily morally vicious also.<br /><br />Simple really, isn't it?Fr. Bryan Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040773309359417883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-63614478304795124172012-02-02T07:49:31.359+13:002012-02-02T07:49:31.359+13:00From Bryan Owen's post
"Do you think that...From Bryan Owen's post<br />"Do you think that the Church in Uganda is 'morally vicious' in supporting the State's persecution of Gays?<br /><br />Yes, absolutely!!! .<br /><br />Similarly, would you say that TEC's advocacy for the LGBT community is 'morally vicious'?<br /><br />I have to give this a more nuanced response"<br /><br />EXACTLY!!<br />And when asked if I think Sentamu's opposition to gay marriage is morally vicious, then I also say that I have to give this a more nuanced response.<br /><br />Simple really, isn't it?Suemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03128736092253293640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-66124793101134286912012-02-02T06:36:00.327+13:002012-02-02T06:36:00.327+13:00Hi Fr. Ron. I had intended to leave the rest of t...Hi Fr. Ron. I had intended to leave the rest of the comments to others since I've probably had more than my fair share of say, but since you've asked questions directly to me, I will respond.<br /><br /><i>Do you think that the Church in Uganda is 'morally vicious' in supporting the State's persecution of Gays?</i><br /><br />Yes, absolutely!!! I think that singling out persons for persecution, imprisonment, torture, even murder, is about as morally vicious as it gets! Rejecting such actions, of course, doesn't mean embracing the "progressive" agenda in sexual ethics and sacramental theology.<br /><br /><i>Similarly, would you say that TEC's advocacy for the LGBT community is 'morally vicious'?</i><br /><br />I have to give this a more nuanced response. General Convention has not yet approved rites for the blessing of same-sex unions, so we have not reached a point in our common life in which those who refuse to do so as a matter of principle can be officially or even canonically disciplined and/or dismissed (many fear that day will eventually come, however). But insofar as the support of some "progressives" for these rights has meant that persons otherwise qualified have been denied entrance into the process leading to ordination and/or written off as candidates for jobs because they do not support same-sex blessings, then I would characterize that as morally wrong, and in some cases it could well be vicious, too.<br /><br /><i>And how, in your opinion, do these two compare in 'moral viciousness'?</i> <br /><br />Well, the United States of America is not Uganda, and the Episcopal Church is not the Church in Uganda. In that respect, Suem's point about context is important and accurate. But there are other ways of dealing with one's opponents than what the Ugandan legislation would allow for. Those ways are, no doubt, kinder and gentler. But I doubt that those on the receiving end will say, "Well, at least I didn't get thrown in prison and tortured for my beliefs. I just got shut out of seminary, blackballed from serving on diocesan committees, passed over for jobs that I'm qualified for, and had others in positions of authority generally make my life miserable. No big deal, right?"Fr. Bryan Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040773309359417883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-76481751556285754332012-02-01T22:15:32.373+13:002012-02-01T22:15:32.373+13:00Bryan, looking at one of your comments above - abo...Bryan, looking at one of your comments above - about what is and is not 'morally vicious': Do you think that the Church in Uganda is 'morally vicious' is supporting the State's persecution of Gays?<br /><br />Similarly, would you say that TEC's advocacy for the LGBT community is 'morally vicious'? And how, in your opinion, do these two compare in 'moral viciousness'?Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10928583883958845562012-02-01T14:22:59.781+13:002012-02-01T14:22:59.781+13:00My apologies, Peter. I think I forgot to include ...My apologies, Peter. I think I forgot to include the link to the Episcopal News Service story that quotes Bishop Lane:<br /><br />"<a href="http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/79425_125295_ENG_HTM.htm" rel="nofollow">Liturgy and Music commission hears call for openness, equality for same-gender couples</a>"Fr. Bryan Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040773309359417883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23404187656758010782012-02-01T14:14:35.418+13:002012-02-01T14:14:35.418+13:00One more comment and then anyone else who wishes t...One more comment and then anyone else who wishes to may have the last words.<br /><br />The "progressives" simply cannot have their cake and eat it, too. If they don't draw the only conclusion that follows from the moral logic the narrative of progress from the abolition of slavery to "full, unfettered rights for lesbians and gays" entails, then their inconsistency suggests a depth of incoherence to their position matters such as the blessing of same-sex unions than perhaps even the more vocal conservative critics have discerned.<br /><br />Back in the Fall of 2010, when the <a href="http://generalconvention.org/ccab/roster/2" rel="nofollow">Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music</a> of The Episcopal Church met with representatives of <a href="http://www.province1.org" rel="nofollow">Province I</a> for hearings about people's experiences with same-gender blessings, Bishop Stephen Lane of the Diocese of Maine said this:<br /><br />"I think it is heretical and immoral to have different standards for different groups of baptized people," he said, adding that he fears the church will "lose its nerve" and settle for something that is "separate but equal."<br /><br />Now <i>there's</i> a man who understands the moral logic of the "progressive" agenda! Note the language of "separate but equal." In my context, that speaks to racial segregation, and the way Bishop Lane used it equates opposition to the "progressive" agenda with being on the wrong side of the Civil Rights Movement (which makes this a very serious accusation to level). Note also the language of heresy and immorality - heresy being a dangerous deviation from God's truth, and immorality being ... well, immoral! (At times even vicious?) So anyone who opposes the "full, unfettered rights for lesbians and gays" is advocating for equivalent of segregation, is immoral, and is a heretic. Those are strong words of judgment and condemnation. But Bishop Lane understood that his position requires nothing less than for him to draw such a conclusion.Fr. Bryan Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040773309359417883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-32187673363834313352012-02-01T13:30:34.902+13:002012-02-01T13:30:34.902+13:00Suem, perhaps the problem is less one of context a...Suem, perhaps the problem is less one of context and more one of terminology. I've been using the classical distinction between vice and virtue (morally vicious as opposed to morally virtuous). It may sound kinder and gentler to say "morally wrong" as opposed to "morally right." <br /><br />If the Queen were to oppose votes for women, even if her character were otherwise virtuous, her position would be morally wrong.<br /><br />If the Queen were to support slavery, however, I think we would rightly characterize such a position as not only morally wrong but also as morally vicious (given the horrors entailed by slavery).<br /><br />At the very least, the "progressive" moral logic requires making the judgment that persons who oppose "full, unfettered gay and lesbian rights" are morally wrong. But if such opposition is on the same moral plane as supporting slavery (which the narrative trajectory noted by the PB and other "progressives" claims), then that's frankly too kind of a judgment, regardless of how moderate and rather gentle someone's words and personality may be. The "progressive" moral logic requires a stronger condemnation: that opposing "full, unfettered gay and lesbian rights" is a vicious position. Indeed, given the narrative trajectory of "progress" cited by the PB, the moral logic entails the view that such opposition is degrading to the personhood of LGBT persons in a way analogous to slavery. <br /><br />It may well be the case that many "progressives" will not draw that conclusion. My point is that if they don't draw that conclusion, then they have failed to be consistent with what their own moral logic dictates.Fr. Bryan Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040773309359417883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26756936523884996242012-02-01T10:49:27.105+13:002012-02-01T10:49:27.105+13:00No, because context is everything. Queen Victoria ...No, because context is everything. Queen Victoria opposed the right of women to vote, for example, didn't mean that she was morally vicious! You have to look at the historical and social context. If our present Queen were to oppose votes for women there would be an outcry- not sure she would be seen as "morally vicious" but she would be considered very strange and it would be deemed "unacceptable". You need to look at the context, at people's words (are they vicious) and their actions (are they vicious.) John Sentamu is rather moderate and often very gentle in his words - although I think him misguided here. Certain organisations such as Anglican Mainstream are morally vicious, that accusation could not, in all justice, be levelled at him. He is misguided (only my opinion) but he is not, by any logical conclusion, vicious.Suemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03128736092253293640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-41453325334207371642012-01-31T11:21:05.724+13:002012-01-31T11:21:05.724+13:00Suem, I'm not "jumping" to anything,...Suem, I'm not "jumping" to anything, nor am I ascribing opinions by proxy. I'm simply making the conclusion that follows as a matter of course in the moral logic espoused by the PB and others in the "progressive" camp.<br /><br />If one accepts that slavery is morally vicious, and if one accepts that denying the civil rights of African Americans and women is morally vicious, and if, by extension, one says that embracing "full, unfettered gay and lesbian rights" (including the right to marriage and having one's union blest) is on the same moral trajectory of progress as rejecting slavery and segregation, and giving women the right to vote, then it necessarily follows that opposing "full, unfettered gay and lesbian rights" is just as morally vicious as supporting slavery and segregation and denying women the right to vote. It follows that allowing someone who opposes LGBT rights to exercise a position of moral/religious leadership in the Church without disciplining and/or dismissing them would be wrong. That's not <i>jumping</i> to a conclusion. That's <i>coasting smoothly</i> to the only conclusion that can possibly and consistently follow as a matter of logic.Fr. Bryan Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040773309359417883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-5556553661494458202012-01-31T07:06:32.769+13:002012-01-31T07:06:32.769+13:00If she didn't say such things were "moral...If she didn't say such things were "morally vicious" Bryan Owen and should lead to dismissal, then the fact you wish to jump to this conclusion and ascribe these opinions to her by proxy, is neither here nor there.Suemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03128736092253293640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82583860338381742252012-01-30T18:49:47.301+13:002012-01-30T18:49:47.301+13:00Hi Ron,
I would go further, Ron: I am often wrong...Hi Ron,<br /><br />I would go further, Ron: I am often wrong.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-24490334821507484162012-01-30T17:46:09.694+13:002012-01-30T17:46:09.694+13:00Pewter, re your last argument - in response to Ali...Pewter, re your last argument - in response to Alison's attribution - your reply is hardly 'chicken or egg' is it? All we can assume is that you are admitting that, sometimes - like the rest of us - your arguments can be 'wrong'.<br /><br />Join the club!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-5365990184359471962012-01-30T13:54:57.379+13:002012-01-30T13:54:57.379+13:00You are indeed correct, Alison, that my logic is u...You are indeed correct, Alison, that my logic is unassailable ... so long as it is the logic of the Holy Spirit.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-51079446691255576232012-01-30T13:29:35.496+13:002012-01-30T13:29:35.496+13:00Hi Suem. My PB is too politically astute to actua...Hi Suem. My PB is too politically astute to actually say what the moral logic she's laid out requires if "progressives" are serious about what they purportedly believe (after all, that has potential for looking really bad!). I'm simply pointing what that moral logic, in fact, requires. So yes, if "progressives" get the upper hand throughout the Anglican Communion, and they are confronted with people who are throwing up road blocks to the ordination of women, the blessing of same-sex unions, etc., then the moral logic they espouse requires them to discipline and/or dismiss such persons from positions of leadership. Failure to do so suggests that they don't really believe what they say they believe!Fr. Bryan Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040773309359417883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90866704785774808602012-01-30T13:01:32.200+13:002012-01-30T13:01:32.200+13:00Your logic, as always, is unassailable, Peter.
I ...Your logic, as always, is unassailable, Peter.<br /><br />I even hear of people who seek to change the definition of marriage as being for life, and allow marriage after divorce. Unfortunately, according to at least one regular commenter here at ADU, this means some people are not listening to the Holy Spirit who is currently guiding the church into new truth on marriage. It being a grave offence for church officials not to heed the direct guidance of God, I look forward to reports that these have been disciplined if not ejected from office. Alternatively there could be reports that various liberal/progressive Anglicans around the Communion are revising their estimation of the Holy Spirit's intention to undermine Scripture ...<br /><br />I also hear, I know you may not believe it, of people who seek to change the definition of ordination and preaching as being for males, and allow women to preach to mixed-gender groups, including congregations! Unfortunately, according to at least one regular commenter here at ADU, this means some people are not listening to the Holy Spirit who is currently guiding the church into new truth on ordination. It being a grave offence for church officials not to heed the direct guidance of God, I look forward to reports that these have been disciplined if not ejected from office. Alternatively there could be reports that various liberal/progressive Anglicans around the Communion are revising their estimation of the Holy Spirit's intention to undermine Scripture ...<br /><br />AlisonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-27152654294264642032012-01-30T11:19:32.956+13:002012-01-30T11:19:32.956+13:00Hi Fr. Ron. I think you are missing my point. I&...Hi Fr. Ron. I think you are missing my point. I'm not talking about the conservatives who've left churches like The Episcopal Church. I'm talking about conservatives and moderates who remain in The Episcopal Church who are not willing to embrace the "new revelation" that is driving the push for "full, unfettered gay and lesbian rights" by blessing same-sex unions. If my PB is correct that such rights are on the same moral plane as the rights of women, African Americans, etc., then it would be morally wrong to "'live with' the complexities" of persons who reject such rights by allowing them to be in positions of moral and religious leadership.Fr. Bryan Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040773309359417883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-61614943220208378692012-01-30T11:14:40.893+13:002012-01-30T11:14:40.893+13:00Has the Presiding Bishop actually said that opposi...Has the Presiding Bishop actually said that opposing the rights of LGBT people to have their unions blessed by the Church is "morally vicious"? Are those her actual words, Bryan Owen?<br />As to rejecting slavery, segregation, and inequality for women - well, the last of those, namely inequality for women is still alive and kicking in the Church (it would be untenable for us to have a female Archbishop of Canterbury.) If you read this link http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2012/jan/24/church-of-england-female-bishops<br />then apparently the ABC and John Sentamu are planning to protect those who openly oppose equality for women in the Church. So, by your definition above, most of the hierarchy of the C of E should be dismissed!Suemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03128736092253293640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74117491901841265862012-01-30T10:43:29.838+13:002012-01-30T10:43:29.838+13:00In part response to Bryan Owen's last comment,...In part response to Bryan Owen's last comment, where he asks how opponents of the LGBT community can 'live with' those who embrace them; my answer would be that they haven't. Most of them have moved themselves out of the Communion, seemingly unable to 'live with' their fellow Christians who happen to be gay.<br /><br />Perhaps a more eirenic way of dealing with our opponents would be to live with the contradictions that Unity in Diversity requires.<br /><br />Each side, has to learn to 'live with' the complexities of our common human condition. Is that too much to ask?Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com