The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent letter outlines his perspective on the crisis affecting the Anglican Communion and his plans and expectations for the Lambeth Conference and the proposed Covenant.
The Archbishop naturally focuses his attention on the Primates, bishops and Instruments of Communion, and the leaders and pressure groups who are exacerbating the crisis.
What the Archbishop is unable to do is articulate the experience and views of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) members of the Anglican Communion. We are a minority but our numbers are not insignificant. If the Communion has 75 million members, at a conservative estimate there are likely to be 3.75 million LGBT people among them.
Attention is further focussed on one faithfully partnered bishop. The experience of 3.75 million LGBT members of the Communion is ignored. Changing Attitude and Integrity between us give voice and visibility to a tiny minority of the minority.
Hostility to LGBT people in the Communion is primarily expressed towards those who live in the “west”. We have benefited from over a century of progress in the development of confidence, visibility, secular political action and Christian integrity among LGBT Anglicans. The majority of the 3.75 million live in nations with penal codes condemning homosexual people to death or long-term imprisonment and a culture of prejudice and aggression towards LGBT people.
Dream on, CA.
It is breathtaking how an estimate in paragraph 4 turns into a factual number in paragraph 5, bringing up Twain’s “lies, damn lies, and statistics”.
I just love how calling sin “sin” is labeled hostility.
Lambeth 1.10 was created in the heat of a brutally, unchristian debate? No, the assent process of VGR in 2003 was brutally, unchristian. Those that opposed were shouted down, attacked as bigots, etc. And certainly theological discussion was avoided assiduously.
I love the “conservative” estimate that 5% of Anglicans are homosexuals. She asserts this and then states it as fact. What balderdash. Not even in America, with the Episcopal church rapidly becoming the gay-church are the numbers that high.
” … the assent process of VGR in 2003 was brutally, unchristian. Those that opposed were shouted down, attacked as bigots, etc.”
Really? In Minneapolis? “Shouted down???” When did that happen, pray tell? And who did the shouting? I must have missed a meeting, but my experience was of profound respect for differences of opinion and a process filled with prayer.
So you’re on board with 1.10 now, Susan, seeing as how it was democratically arrived-at and all?
Those who did the shoulting always believe that their actions were “filled with respect.” Ask your PB. After allowing many of us to be treated horribly at NV Dio convention2003, even being, yes, literally shouted at across the floor, she was “proud of how you treated each other.” If that’s respectful, who needs disrespect.
Ah, but I forgot…to liberals, “respectful” is equivalent to “got my way.”
robroy, you are absolutely correct in your damning of statistics. Such blatant falsehoods should be called.
This nonsense of course expresses a total incomprehension of Christian theology on the part of [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/saturdaylive/2006/12/gay_priest_colin_coward.html]Fr. Coward[/url], as any 12-year-old in an Episcopal Confirmation Class could have explained to him half a century ago. Two generations of complete neglect of Christian teaching at the parish level have taken their toll.
Susan, ask Kendall, ask Ephraim Radner, etc. about their experiences in 2003. The hateful accusations of hate mongering were hurled freely at those who simply stood for Christian orthodoxy. All attempts to look at theological ramifications were ruthlessly squelched. Rather, political spin campaign was proffered up as exemplified by the vacuous “Ask me about Gene” buttons.
This statement speaks to such a poor understanding of what it means to be the body of Christ, a body in communion. This is an issue at the very heart of determining our future in the Anglican Communion and to not understand and accept that speaks to the very reason we have the problems we do. Please explain to me how an action taken by one part of the communion, that impacts all other parts of the communion is not absolutely fundamental to determining our future? There is room for diversity certainly, but that diversity is limited by the Church acting as a whole. Every conciliar statement (of the whole communion – that which limits us) we have thus far has said – NO to same sex blessings and to the ordination of gay and lesbian individuals in same gender partnerships. Therefore this is not an issue of diversity within unity; it is an issue of imprudent action, sinful action which has deeply harmed members of the communion and has in fact harmed the gay and lesbian population of the Church. How dare one argue that this is not an issue of the utmost importance for the future of the Communion.
And this is right where bad sermons usually end. True enough, God does call LGBT people to become Christians and to fall in love with Him such that they may be transformed into that which they are not presently. God welcomes us where we are, true, but the story doesn’t end there and any theology that leaves the story there is a false witness to the gospel.
And what about honoring the integrity of those who believe the bible does not all for same gender relationships; that this is not God’s will for relationships? Should the voices of these individuals simply be ignored as ‘ignorant,’ or not enlightened? What theological or ecclesial grounds are there for justifying your position? Integrity only occurs in relationship; those portions of the communion that have acted autonomously have greatly impared if not in many cases severed that relationship. One cannot ask for integrity if one is not willing to engage in a relationship of integrity oneself. In this case, integrity requires submitting one’s actions to the will of the whole Communion and working from within these bounds to put forward one’s biblical interpretations. As it is, all have been greviously injured by the unilateral actions of a few.