Date: October 17th, 2003 04:20 am (UTC)From:(Anonymous)
It's divisive for some interesting and very difficult reasons --- although I wish everyone had had Greengolux's educational background opn such things.
First, there is an argument that people who are in some deep, fundamental way simply disinterested in half the world's population (the other sex, whichever it may be) might not make good bishops. It's a point of view. I have met several gay priests of both sexes and their ability to make their preferences clear, their ability to indicate who they actually find interesting, is disconcerting. That said, many people who are priests have strong interests - I know of one who really has no time for single people, another no time for the rich. However, the church can deal with these folk by sending them to different parishes to learn new ways of thinking; it's not that easy with gay priests.
Secondly, the non-Western church is up against it in the face of Islamic proselytising; even 'moderate' Islam is deeply opposed to homosexuality, despite the fact that Arab culture has accepted its practice for centuries. So for non-Western Anglicans, having a practicing homosexual divorced bishop betrays some of the most sacred human and divine institutions they and their people have suffered for.
None of this is to justify evangelical self-righteousness and hatred of the Other; just to cast a little light on why it is such an issue. Bishops, in particular, are either part of a greater church or else they are not: Gene Robinson left his wife and two children for another partner, and that betrayal of commitment might be even more important than the new partner's sex. Priets who are part of a church which believes that marriage is a sacrament and therefore a promise made to God as well as to another person should not, themselves, be adulterous and then divorced and then made bishops. That behaviour betrays two of the 10 commandments (coveting and adultery) and hardly seems like "loving the Lord thy God with all thy heart, all thy mind, and all thy soul" nor "loving thy neighbour as thyself" (assuming one's spouse is one's neighbour as well as co-participant in a mutual sacrament).
The homosexuality issue is a bit of a smokescreen in the US case. I have met the UK guy and will not comment at all about him, but refer back to initial points.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
disest't etc
Date: October 17th, 2003 04:20 am (UTC)From: (Anonymous)First, there is an argument that people who are in some deep, fundamental way simply disinterested in half the world's population (the other sex, whichever it may be) might not make good bishops. It's a point of view. I have met several gay priests of both sexes and their ability to make their preferences clear, their ability to indicate who they actually find interesting, is disconcerting. That said, many people who are priests have strong interests - I know of one who really has no time for single people, another no time for the rich. However, the church can deal with these folk by sending them to different parishes to learn new ways of thinking; it's not that easy with gay priests.
Secondly, the non-Western church is up against it in the face of Islamic proselytising; even 'moderate' Islam is deeply opposed to homosexuality, despite the fact that Arab culture has accepted its practice for centuries. So for non-Western Anglicans, having a practicing homosexual divorced bishop betrays some of the most sacred human and divine institutions they and their people have suffered for.
None of this is to justify evangelical self-righteousness and hatred of the Other; just to cast a little light on why it is such an issue.
Bishops, in particular, are either part of a greater church or else they are not: Gene Robinson left his wife and two children for another partner, and that betrayal of commitment might be even more important than the new partner's sex. Priets who are part of a church which believes that marriage is a sacrament and therefore a promise made to God as well as to another person should not, themselves, be adulterous and then divorced and then made bishops. That behaviour betrays two of the 10 commandments (coveting and adultery) and hardly seems like "loving the Lord thy God with all thy heart, all thy mind, and all thy soul" nor "loving thy neighbour as thyself" (assuming one's spouse is one's neighbour as well as co-participant in a mutual sacrament).
The homosexuality issue is a bit of a smokescreen in the US case. I have met the UK guy and will not comment at all about him, but refer back to initial points.
Not trying to be contentious...