And yet, every member of the Episcopal clergy I talked with last week, said the votes on both resolutions represented a step in the right direction. The votes sent a message, explicitly reaffirming that gays and lesbians had a place in the church and that the church was committed to the Anglican Communion. That stood in contrast to the somewhat more equivocal position the church had taken several years ago.
”As an issue that relates to human rights, the notion that we could feel that it was appropriate to turn people away from the church when they are committing to a relationship under God when they want God’s blessing was a real ironic turn of events,” said the Rev. Lisa Caton, a Pennington resident who is rector of Canterbury House, the Episcopal Church at The College of New Jersey.
My hope ”” as a straight, non-Christian who believes that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry ”” is that the church’s vote will send a signal that the Christian community in the United States is not of one mind on the issue. The so-called Christian right ”” politically conservative, evangelical fundamentalist Christians ”” and the Catholic Church have been fairly vocal about their opposition to same-sex marriage. And, as with abortion, their views too often are assumed to represent all Christian thinking.
”The Christian right has such a loud voice on this and quite often people think they speak for all Christians,” said the Rev. Karin Mitchell, rector of St. David’s Episcopal Church in Cranbury. “So it is import that the Episcopal Church witness clearly to our stand on treating people equally.”
This is so wrongheaded in so many ways, but it’s been flogged to death here. No mas.
Once more the Episcopal Church sees itself as larger and more “important” than its barely 800000 actual members show it to really be.
If the church did not endorse (approve) same-sex marriage, why has it ordered the drafting of liturgies to be used in same-sex marriage ceremonies?
w.w.
[blockquote] And, as with abortion, their views too often are assumed to represent all Christian thinking.[/blockquote]
The reappraisers should consider if their views represent Christian thinking at all.
As Groucho Marx once said, “I wouldn’t belong to any organization that would have me as a member.” My rephrasing of this would be, “I wouldn’t belong to any organization that would have everyone as a member who could hold any office.” At that point, it is no longer an organization let alone a church. TEC and manics have many things in common; neither have any boundaries and both suffer from delusions of grandeur. Neither will listen because they are too busy speaking and both think they are getting special messages.
Yes, it’s an awful article all right, smacking more of “progressive” propaganda than of objective journalism. There is not even an attempt to portray an opposing viewpoint. But it does provide a convenient window into the secular culture, giving us a glimpse into the way many people outside the Church think.
Part of what I found interesting and telling is that the author couldn’t find a TEC priest who disapproved of the pro-gay actions taken by Gen Con in Anaheim. Of course, he doesn’t let us know how hard he tried either. What a sad indication of just how far advanced is the state of moral rot and decay in TEC.
But I also thought it interesting that the author openly admits to being a “non-Christian.” And he does so without any embarrassment or shame. That too is a little sign of how profoundly secularized some parts of America have become. Clearly, we have our work cut out for us.
David Handy+
Sorry, I couldn’t get past Rev. Zamboni. His job must be cleaning the ice for the frozen chosen.
This is really a kind of bait and switch attack. Placing on the onus on “fundamentalists” and arguing that it is they who have controlled the debate, who have been in the drivers’ seat is simply false, but it places an attractive target while it substitutes its own agenda. Larry