From the Orange Country Register:
The other day, six Anglican archbishops called for the church to bless the unions of same-sex couples. The Anglican Church of Canada is about to have a big vote on the issue, and depending which way they swing it will either deepen the schism within the worldwide Anglican Communion or further isolate the Episcopal Church of the United States.
But never mind all that. What struck me was the rationale the archbishops came up with. This gay thing, they sighed. We’ve been yakking about it for years. Let’s just get on with it, and then we can get back to the important stuff. “We are deeply concerned that ongoing study,” they fretted, “will only continue to draw us away from issues which are gradually destroying God’s creation ”“ child poverty, racism, global warming, economic injustice, concern for our aboriginal brothers and sisters and the growing disparity between the rich and the poor.”
That’s it? Anglicans need to fast-track a liturgy for gay couples so they can free up time to deal with the real issues like global warming? Half that catalogue of horrors seems to be different ways of saying the same thing (“child poverty”¦ economic injustice”¦ growing disparity”) in order to give a bit of pro forma padding to the totally cool cause du jour of global warming. Which is so cool that, if an Anglican archbishop shows up at a climate-change conference, he’ll be lucky to get in the room, and if he does he’ll be stuck at the table with the wonky leg next to the toilet, barely able to see the Most Reverend Almer Gortry up on stage doing his power-point presentation and warning that rising sea levels will send tidal waves crashing through every gay wedding reception in Provincetown by Saturday afternoon.
I’d feel better about it if the bishops Prayed about climate change. We have enough politicians already.
One thing that has bothered me about the reappraisers’ views is “we’re spending too much time on this issue. Let’s drop it and work on the true mission of the Church (fill in the blank here).”
It’s nice for them to notice that discussing sexuality takes away from the mission of the Church. I suggest we return to the status quo ante where we bless the same unions and elect the same sexually active bishops as we did before we took our focus off of the mission of the Church.
If we want to continue to discuss sexual activity outside of marriage or we want to change the definition of marriage, then let’s continue the discussion, but agree not to act until the Communion as a whole wants to change the definition of marriage.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Aren’t reappraisers constantly accusing reasserters of not allowing the “discussion” called for by Lambeth 1.10, even after they have been waging discussion for some 30yrs. now. Sounds like dumping the chessboard and pieces on the floor when it begins to appear that they will lose the game.
Good point Phil, God Bless you!
The problem with the “political†church we belong to is that marriage has already been defined for several thousand years and in Holy Scripture. After all this time of successful usage that marriage is between a man and a woman, for whatever political reasons, the Bishops and others have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the idea that marriage CAN be redefined. It simply cannot be.
The state as the body politic can offer similar advantages to same sex couples, like division of property, as are offered to male and female couples, but they do not have the power to tell God that it is marriage. The bishops may think that they can, but they can’t. As the old saying goes, “Just because you say it’s so, doesn’t make it so.
It’s disobedience to God’s Word which is destroying the world. Get back to obedience and those other problems would go away.
Seems so simple. Sigh.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
The next to last paragraph has the real problem nicely summarized.
Klaus, unlike TEC, understands what the problem is, and whence it arises.
It is amusing to hear the same sort of people say again and again that the sexuality issue is a red herring and is diverting the church from its real mission as a social service provider. And yet, I can think of no time when issues of sex were not matters of grave consequence, and my impression is that this matter takes up everyone’s time for many many years. IN short, this issue is vastly more important than whether we fight AIDs in Africa, for the sexualty issue is about ideas, which at last, must come before human life, for the value of life depends on the ideas we espouse. Larry