calling all Anglicans

[ionesmum]

What do you make of the statement today re the gay issue?

Also, what do you make of the CofE in general?

I'm struggling to stay with the church at the moment, and could really do with some fresh perspectives on things.

I'm in a dreadful hurry (as usual) - please bear with me!

In the O.T. there is a lot about how God does not require sacrifice, he requires us to be in a right relationship with him. But the sacrifices made by the people of Israel were important to them so that they felt they were able to atone, give thanks, and be in communion with God. So when it comes to the Crucifixion, it's not God who requires it, but us. We need something as astonishing as someone dying for us to believe that we are forgiven. Because we do believe sin to be wrong, and need to see that there is justice - both for ourselves, and also (I'm afraid) for others. I know that a lot of people will say, 'Well, actually, I don't' but deep down I think most of us do have a strong sense of justice and do want to see that people pay the price of their actions - and Jesus does that for all of us. And we need the sacrifice of Holy Communion fo rexactly the same reason as the people of Israel did. It's for our benefit, not God's.

Now having said that, I should add that when I put this to my tutor he told me it was rubbish.

Papillon, good to see you here. The reason I started this thread specifiaclly for Anglicans was because I was so shocked about the recent statement on the gay issue, and wanted to hear from other Anglicans as to whether it affected how they felyt about he church in light of it. Of course, the thread has expanded a bit since then!

Tolerance with regard to the gay issue doesn't mean that people are wishy-washy. I think its far harder to be tolerant than to use the (so-called) word of God to back up prejudice.

waswondering - meant to say I love your post of 9.23 this morning. I too believe that Christianity is ultimately about having a relationship with Jesus, but your post put it so beautifully.

Bloss - I think that both your reasoning approach and my intuitive one are wrong - after all they are both marks of our humanity, aren't they?

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

waswondering - another fab post. And I am glad that this thread has now enlarged on the original topic - sharing faith is such a wonderful thing to do.

Bloss - as a 'liberal' (although I'm not entirely happy with any label) I most definitely do care what people do with their sex lives. I jsu don't think that two gay people in a loving, monogamous relationship are doing anything wrong. So, if anything, I care that they are able to pursue that relationship and, if they wish, have it blessed in the same way that a straight relationship can. I don't tolerate adultery (although I am more than prepared to forgive it).

Message withdrawn

bloss, in your original post you said that liberals don't care what people do. I was pointing out that we do - as you have now acknowledged, when it comes to gay relationships I at least actively approve. And as I have said, I do not tolerate adultery (although I will be tolerant to those who practice it and of course forgive ( I hope)) but there are other sexual activities that are abusive and therefore beyond tolerance. Your orignal post sounded as though liberals don't care who shags whom.

bloss you don't actually know how anyone else has come to their position of tolerance. You are making far too many assumptions.

I got half way through the thread..(V V interesting) and need to dash. So I'm sorry if this has been said already.....but I wanted to say that my dh and i (he evangelical anglican and i a liberal catholic) felt most strongly about this too.

It has been very upsetting for lots of people at our church (liberal chrch).

why is this so hard...
1- the anglicqan communion if huge and the majority of it is african.
2-the african churches are years gehind us in terms of understanding of a) homosexuality and sexuality in general. and b) monogomous long term relationships
3-the head of the world wide anglican communion is our Archbishop.
4- I am sure rowam williams must be finding this situation awful- it is one of the cases where as a bishop 'his personal' opinion and that of the society he lives in are in the minority.

apart from the biblical issues (which all depend on you hermeneutics) for me I cannot belive that we can enter schism over an issue such as homosexuality and clearly ignore that the majority of the WWAC (african churches) are struggling to sort out their own sexual ethics in the area of bigomy, promiscuity and the speedy spread of aids because of this.

For me if you are going to apply a sexual ethic of your culture(not necc a biblically based ethic) on the rest of your denomination across the world then this ethic should apply to you as well (ie- sex outside of marriage as xn's understand marriage ...man and woman....is wrong). I think...thinking on the hoof!

(feel free to correct me as I rushed this post.....)

As for women Bishops..it will happen..it is entirely incoherant for it not to...theologically speaking...and I believe that of the calls for a third province become more of a possibility ...many women and men on synod will vote against it...we'd rather wait 50 years than have a third province!!

Hi Geordie: Not sure what point you are making re. the women Bishops. Are you saying that Synod will rather wait than have a third province? Do you think that is true? I really don't know. I know that my parish WANTS a third province - they are hardcore anti-women-priest brigade.

Bloss: "Tolerance is ... the process of making a judgement that something is wrong and still allowing someone else to do it."

Not at all. Here's one defintion: "allowing some freedom to move within limits". I would say that's more my take on the word tolerance (if that's the word we want to use). The limits (to me) are a monogamous loving sexual relationship. The freedom within those limits is a freedom to express that love sexually in whatever way both parties feel is mutually satisfying and loving. I would tolerate any mutually loving sexual practice, between any humans in a monogamous and loving relationship.

Geordie: Good points about different cultures attitude to sex, by the way. It is a bit depressing that we are hung up on the issue of what (basically) certain men are doing with their penises when half of Africa is dying from AIDS.

Haven't managed to read all of this thread so apologies if I am repeating other people's sentiments! I'm a committed anglo-catholic which I am aware is considered the "gayer" end of the Anglican church, but I do have two strong views on this subject - one practical and one ethical! Firstly, if there is an exclusion of homosexuality in the C of E then the high A-C shurch will probably run out of clergy and congregation and gradually fade away, which I think would be a huge shame as I find it's teachings and style of worship immensely enriching. The second is that my understanding (which may well be wrong) of Christian spirit is to defend the wronged and to forgive what one perceives to be wrong in others' behaviour; I am aware that to take that to its logical extreme could be a licence to do nothing about any perceived wrong, but am uncomfortably aware that the Bible also forbids swearing like a sailor and having sex before marriage, to both of which I must plead guilty so feel uncomfortable about judging others' sexual behaviour.

Sorry - not very clear. No brains.

Polina: Good point - in fact if I remember correctly, wasn't the Affirming Catholicism movement set up by Rowan Williams and a certain young Jeffrey John?!

For me, tolerance in this context means that the so-called liberals tolerate that which they may (or may not) approve of to prevent graver wrongs or to advance a greater good.

hi again, mp-

I truly believe that a third province would be unworkable for the many ordained women in the church. Especially as how can a non-geographical province give freedom to women whatever their status..bishop or priest? It is clear that there would be 'black spots' or no go areas that would restrict women (and even more so those who would appreciate their ministry) far more than current situation already does. I also think we need to bear in mind that the tail cannot wag the dog as such- those opposed are in the minority. I do believe that there should be pastoral guidelines and certain measures to support those that struggle with the majority decisions of the church- but I am not happy to see schism over a minority. Our synod reps would vote against (apart from one I think) a third province. Many women are coming out of the shadows to say 'we don't want women bishops if it means doing the third province thing' It doesn't mean that there shouldn't be pastoral care and delicate consideration of the needs of those that disagree. Basically- it is one of those issue in which I feel I could be pushed away from the church i feel is my home. I can live without women bishops (although would dearly like to see women affirmed as trluy equal to men and just as able to portray christ in whatever God calls her to). I do not think I could live with a third province- to be honest i have experienced enough painful and bitter personal attack without institutionalising it as acceptable forever.

I honestly do believe that there are a lot of people in synod that would vote against. Unfortunatley as democratic as you might think synod is....last time when the vote for women priests went through the bishops put sufficient pressure on the synod to vote for a 'act of synod'that the majority disagreed with (they had said no in 1978 and 1984 to similar suggested documents). I could explain the act in great detail but lets just say it kinda says 'yes we believe women have been ordained...but we don't have to believe it either, as well as holding pastoral 'solutions' for the anti-brigade!)

I fear synod maybe put under the same pressure again!

I am researching the matter to see if i can find other solutions than the one suggested by f in faith. It is possible that there maybe ones acceptable to both sides...but we'll both need to comprimise a bit...be a bit more tolerant!

the anglican church is so diverse and it's held together for years...that's one of the reasons i love it. all of a sudden we've all become so intolerent of one another.....

really enjoying reading this thread and wish I was as educated as you lot....

geordie, I was surprised you used the phrase "behind us" when referring to the African Church. Does that mean that you think that they will eventually catch up? It seems to me, that, although Anglican in name, they are far more "right-wing" (if that is the correct term)than most UK-based Anglicans.

Even though numerically they are in the majority, surely the "home" of Anglicanism is England? Shouldn't they be told to toe the line or get out? Please don't think that I really think this- it's just an idea...

I know several gay Anglican priests, and it's no great secret, mostly they aren't just tolerated, but loved by their congragations. As you say- surely the African church has far more important things to worry about than what a few Britons are up to?

Hi Tissy,

I think it is dangerous to think of the 'home of anglicansim is in england'- as that really smarts of colonialism. The churches in africa are indigenous now and do not depend on us for anything. The world wide communion has never been about total agreement. It's about national churches that have a common heritage staying in contact and discussing issues that affect us all- we make decision seperately (ie- women priests) but consult. Some churches have fallen away in the past- they chose to leave- none have ever been kicked out. Ecusa- having made a decision knowing that the rest of the communion would disagree with them- have been asked to reflect on how this affects everyone- not just them but us. They have not been asked to leave and are still anglicans. Neither have they been formally asked to repent (dispite calls for this). All that they have been asked to do is to express remorse for the hurt that they have caused.

When I am saying behind us- I am talking about the fact that generally there isn't the widespread acceptance of the sort of view of sexuality and sexual identity that we have- to the extent that I think we are more developed and advanced in our way of understanding human beings in this area...so yes I hope they will become more enlightened in their understanding of humanity- there are african church leaders paving the way- such as desmond tutu.

As far as them being right-wing is concerned- it's dangerous to think too much in our political terms. These issues look very different in a cultural context where the major competing world view to a christian one is not a secular humanist one but a muslim one.

Hi Tissy,

I think it is dangerous to think of the 'home of anglicansim is in england'- as that really smarts of colonialism. The churches in africa are indigenous now and do not depend on us for anything. The world wide communion has never been about total agreement. It's about national churches that have a common heritage staying in contact and discussing issues that affect us all- we make decision seperately (ie- women priests) but consult. Some churches have fallen away in the past- they chose to leave- none have ever been kicked out. Ecusa- having made a decision knowing that the rest of the communion would disagree with them- have been asked to reflect on how this affects everyone- not just them but us. They have not been asked to leave and are still anglicans. Neither have they been formally asked to repent (dispite calls for this). All that they have been asked to do is to express remorse for the hurt that they have caused.

When I am saying behind us- I am talking about the fact that generally there isn't the widespread acceptance of the sort of view of sexuality and sexual identity that we have- to the extent that I think we are more developed and advanced in our way of understanding human beings in this area...so yes I hope they will become more enlightened in their understanding of humanity- there are african church leaders paving the way- such as desmond tutu.

As far as them being right-wing is concerned- it's dangerous to think too much in our political terms. These issues look very different in a cultural context where the major competing world view to a christian one is not a secular humanist one but a muslim one.

opps

Hi Geordie.

Very interested to read your posts. Personally I think it is a bit dangerous to say that Afric needs to 'catch up' with our more 'enlightened' view of sexuality. People like Peter Akinola are intelligent men; the information is there if they want to take note of it. And the idea that we have that we are culturally superior to them is one of the reasons that they have been so determined to win through in this instance. And you are right when you say that Africans have no notion of a secular state - which is why when they look at how much of our society behaves they think we are hypocritical.

I'm not saying that all westerners are superior to africans because they have a more enlightened understaning- I am saying that I happen to believe that an understanding of humanity and human sexuality that sees homosexuals as full human beings is closer to the truth than an understanding that sees them as unnatural, diseased or inherantly sinful. In as much as this more truthful view of humanity seems to be more widely held in western churches than in african churches I would say that we in the west have better developed understanding in this area. Yes- the knowledge is there and there are very intellegent African Christians and church leaders, but at the end of the day there is one perspective that is more commonly found in the west and one perspective more commonly found in Africa (I know I'm generalising...but the majority opinion is that which is heard!) and when you have two perspectives saying different things about something this important I think it's fair to say which you think is closer to the truth.

BTW- Ionesmum- don't give up that vocation. I think you'd make a great priest. have read more of the thread......having babies does interfer....but it doesn't stop it. I Want to remain reletively anon on here (internet!) but if you want to CAT me, do. I am pursuing my vocation (with small children) ...am a bit further along the process than you!!

grrrr doesn't interfere.....(gosh I should think and preview!!)

being a mother becomes part of a bigger vocation. Kids make it different...interesting and more challenging....