While lacking the dictatorial powers that the Pope has over the Roman Catholic Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury nonetheless has a bully pulpit from which he could confront the homophobes within the Anglican Communion. Unfortunately, he seems more concerned with "playing nice" rather than calling the bigots out for what they truly are to their face. Historically, many of the claims based on the Bible - flat earth, sun revolving around the earth, etc. - have proven to be utterly false. Moreover, discrimination and mistreatment of others justified by Bible interpretation have been rejected as false: slavery, the inferiority of blacks, subjugation of women, war and the murder of women and children. Indeed, the list goes on and on. Yet faced with modern medical and mental health knowledge of the immutability of sexual orientation, hate and discrimination against LGBT humans remains acceptable based on a few Bible passages written by those with various agendas and who were ignorant of modern knowledge. Rowan Williams could confront this bigotry but he is too spineless to do it (as are similarly gutless leaders in other denominations). Instead he cow tows to those like Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria who may have had complicity in the massacre of over 600 Muslims, including women and children. Here are some highlights from Williams' latest fence sitting via the Guardian:*
[I]t needs to be made absolutely clear that, on the basis of repeated statements at the highest levels of the communion's life, no Anglican has any business reinforcing prejudice against LGBT people, questioning their human dignity and civil liberties or their place within the body of Christ. Our overall record as a communion has not been consistent in this respect and this needs to be acknowledged with penitence.
*
However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about whether the church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.
However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about whether the church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.
*
In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last 2000 years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.
In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last 2000 years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.
*
This is not our situation in the communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the church catholic, or even of the communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the church's teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.
This is not a matter that can be wholly determined by what society at large considers usual or acceptable or determines to be legal. Prejudice and violence against LGBT people are sinful and disgraceful when society at large is intolerant of such people; if the church has echoed the harshness of the law and of popular bigotry – as it so often has done – and justified itself by pointing to what society took for granted, it has been wrong to do so. But on the same basis, if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the church to change its discipline.
This is not our situation in the communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the church catholic, or even of the communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the church's teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.
This is not a matter that can be wholly determined by what society at large considers usual or acceptable or determines to be legal. Prejudice and violence against LGBT people are sinful and disgraceful when society at large is intolerant of such people; if the church has echoed the harshness of the law and of popular bigotry – as it so often has done – and justified itself by pointing to what society took for granted, it has been wrong to do so. But on the same basis, if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the church to change its discipline.
*
Sadly, under Williams' weak kneed analysis, tradition and a lack of a consensus that slavery is and evil apparently justified the Church's centuries long tacit blessing of slavery. I believe that the long view of history will see the "liberal" Episcopalians on the side of full acceptance of LGBT members of the Church the way abolitionist who opposed slavery are viewed today. Meanwhile, Williams and other apologists for bigotry and the gay-hating African Anglicans will be condemned for the wrongs they supported or lacked the courage to challenge.
*
*
Personally, I'd rather be the lone voice calling for what is right as opposed to accommodating injustice and evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment