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

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.