Disestablishment?

[tinyjo]

I wonder what will happen to the Church of England after this debate over gay bishops. The future doesn't look rosy what ever way the debate comes out, really. It was nice to hear an actual bishop endorsing my view of the bible, saying that it consists of people describing their experiences of God and what they believed about it. It's a valuable document, particularly for learning about Jesus but it does need to be read in the context of it's time and shouldn't be taken literally.

Comments

disest't etc

[(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.

Not trying to be contentious...

Re: disest't etc

[snowking.livejournal.com]

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.

That's a very insulting argument. To everyone.

Re: disest't etc

[(Anonymous)]

Well, it is an existing point of view, held by people who believe it applicable to a large swathe of people - I didn't say it was right. But to deal with any issue involving people and their beliefs about others, we have to acknowledge the range of opinions about where we actually are. Some lesbian women think or feel quite honestly that gay men are as much "the enemy" as straight men, because "the community" is at least in part a fiction and that when push comes to shove, in economics or the workplace or wherever, that men will advance other men, no matter what their sexual orientation might be.

There's a fine line in every community - Christian, gay, whatever - between trying to act in accordance with the highest, most loving theoretical posits the community adopts, and merely swallowing wholesale a mythos of perfection and ignoring some of the ugly truths which live side-by-side with the Best. There are some gay people who really don't actually like or care much about members of the opposite sex. If those individuals in some way work the system to be considered for a diocese, it is to be hoped that they would be weeded out - NOT because they're gay but because they don't care. There are plenty of heterosexual but still misogynist men who manage to be priests, but so far relatively few of them have actually become bishops, primarily because their lack of care has been noticed, commented on, reviewed, and they have been contained. The C of E does try hard to eliminate misogynists from their groups of candidates, from the get-go; and certainly the 'harvests' of priests I have encountered in the last 15 years have generally left me feeling hopeful about the long-term future of the church. They ain't perfect, but they *tend* to be open, balanced, positive people with a real sense of the breadth of human behaviours and attitudes.

I don't see the particular relevance of Islam in this...

[applez.livejournal.com]

IME, Christian & Muslim proselytizing has largely fallen along traditional and tribal divisions in places like West Africa, where one considers the populations there most viable for religious conversion.

Since that is the case, there is little more to gain from trying to grow membership within existing structures, and trying to poach people from the others generally hasn't been able to surmount the tribal barriers.

It seems to me, then, that the real threat to the likes of Anglicans in Africa (or Catholics everywhere, for that matter), aren't the Muslims, but fellow Christians who evangelise a more radical view on the religion.

So in 'battleground' places like Africa, parasitism is the only 'growth' pattern for these religious bodies.

Asia is marginally different, but there again, American evangelicals have been particularly effective vis-a-vis other Christians; but all fail since adoption is often conditional on the pre-existing panoply of beliefs.

So, where homosexuality is concerned, I don't particularly see an anti-homosexual Anglican doctrine being particularly useful in a Muslim-conversion campaign per se.

Re: I don't see the particular relevance of Islam in this...

[(Anonymous)]

I wouldn't cliam to have the background knowledge you have; but the argument arises from African priests and their bishops, not from me. It is certainly possible that these folk are grasping at straws, or using their position vis-a-vis Islam as an excuse to be homophobic. However, that there *is* an actively homophobic faction in African Islam is beyond debate, and *apparently* the issue of Christians fostering homosexuality is a point of argument in places as far apart as Malawi and the Sudan (leaving out, say, the tribal complexities of Nigeria).

I have no idea if proselytising to celebrate active, practicing homosexuality is really what Christians should be focussing on to the exclusion of all other issues and needs in life. What bothers me about the current debate is that, apparently, anti-homophobes are keener on pushing that issue as far as it will go, regardless of the effects on the Church as a whole (including, broadly, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and the Protestants of various types in this broad definition). I can't help but think that this debate undermines the efforts of ordinary Christians to visit the imprisoned, help the sick, aid and be alongside the poor, and to succour the weak.

But maybe it's time to let it all go and get back to those pastoral issues, regardless of who is poking whom where. I blame the snake, myself. :-)

Re: I don't see the particular relevance of Islam in this...

[applez.livejournal.com]

proselytising to celebrate active, practicing homosexuality is really what Christians should be focussing on to the exclusion of all other issues and needs in life.

Well, I don't think that is what was sought by the advancement of Gene Robinson. His homosexuality was happenstance to his main mission, though unprecedented in his open acknowledgement. Sure, those homophobes have interpreted the event in this way, unfortunately. Incidentally, it was interesting to hear on the radio an argument put out by one female Anglican who felt Robinson's homosexuality was tantamount to adultery. In strictly legal terms, she has a point, but its null logic when homosexuals cannot marry anyway.

I can't help but think that this debate undermines the efforts of ordinary Christians to visit the imprisoned, help the sick, aid and be alongside the poor, and to succour the weak.

Quite right, which is interest to see Robinson's efforts at the olive branch.

All in all, it says a great deal about people's worked-up revulsion over things that are really none of their affair. Broadly idiotic when one considers the prevalence of homosexuals to the cloth anyway...well, that I've seen and known.