Anglican Plan Threatens Split on Gay Issues (homosexuality, church, marriage)

[Pah]

Anglican Plan Threatens Split on Gay Issues

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and NEELA BANERJEE
Published: June 28, 2006

New York Times - registration required

In a defining moment in the Anglican Communion's civil war over homosexuality, the Archbishop of Canterbury proposed a plan yesterday that could force the Episcopal Church in the United States either to renounce gay bishops and same-sex unions or to give up full membership in the Communion.

[ChrisP]

That's a schism waiting to happen. Over what? Silly decision from a religious and business perspective Archbishop.

[kiwimac]

This is what happens when the ear of the AC is firmly in the possession of the African Archbishops. Considering Peter Akinola (Abp of Nigeria) has consistently supported removing liberals from the church, in much the same way as he supports legislation in Nigeria which not only criminalises homosexual activity but also criminalises any public support for them.

Kiwimac

[michel]

Originally Posted by Pah

Anglican Plan Threatens Split on Gay Issues

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and NEELA BANERJEE
Published: June 28, 2006

New York Times - registration required

In a defining moment in the Anglican Communion's civil war over homosexuality, the Archbishop of Canterbury proposed a plan yesterday that could force the Episcopal Church in the United States either to renounce gay bishops and same-sex unions or to give up full membership in the Communion.

I know; he seems reluctant to give an inch. What a great shame.

[Elvendon]

This is indeed a severe and worrying problem. It worries me intensely that the Communion is threatened with schism. I agree that this is mostly at the behest of certain African Bishops (though it is not exclusively them), who show intolerance and judgementalism that is totally out of keeping with the spirit of the Christian faith and the teachings of Christ (Didn't our Lord forgive the adulterous woman who was going to be stoned?) If Archbishop Akinola really wants to interpret the Bible the way he does, then he should join the American Christian Right and accept other racist and blasphemous interpretations - I would recommend he castigates himself and accepts the insuperiorty as a Son of Ham, as opposed to the far superior sons of Japeth and Shem. But I digress.

The problem here is we are not dealing with the root of the issue - rather than address the issue of whether we like gays or not, we should ask the question why shouldn't/should we not like them?

It is my firm conviction that God, insofar as he ethics and actions are concerned, is a logical, reasonable being. Otherwise, he would be impossible to interact with. Therefore, there must be a reason why homosexuality is a bad thing according to God. Most other things that are forbidden in the Old Testament - non-kosher foods, extra-marital sex, uncleanliness etc. have some modicum of reason to them. Most of the non-kosher foods in the OT are likely to spoil quickly or be infected with parasites in the hot, middle-eastern climate; promiscuous, extra-marital sex spreads disease, carries the risk of unwanted children and devalues what would otherwise be a profound expression of love; uncleanliness causes disease. Even if the rules themselves are flawed, the thoughts behind them tend to be highly sensible.

Then there is homosexuality. Now, when one thinks about it, a strictly monogamous, loving, homosexual relationship should not actually be bad - it does not spread disease, it expresses love, and it certainly does not run the risk of producing unwanted children. The Bible does condemn homosexuality in many passages - even the New Testament refers to it once or twice as being a sin. However, what was homosexual sex back in the day? Well -

http://personal.monm.edu/RBAY/homosexuality_in_rome.htm

Basically, homosexuality in ancient Roman times was not at all what it is today. It existed in two forms - either as a form of sexual power-play or masturbation between a master and his slave or as an element of a pederastic relationship. In Rome, a monogamous homosexual relationship between two freemen was almost unheard of - such a thing would have made both men involved liable to be executed.

What does all this mean? Well it means that passages like:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-10

(which is, in fact, the ONLY passage in the New Testament that I can find that refers directly to homosexuals.)

Are NOT referring to monogamous, equal status, genetically prone, unconvertable, undeniable homosexuals. Because, in Roman times, such a person was not believed to exist. Homosexual sex was merely a matter of preference, just as young men today might decide to go for a blonde or a brunette, young Romans would pick a male or female slave to have sex with. Also, notice it says "homosexual offenders" not "homosexuals" - in the context of other sexually immoral individuals it could mean those homosexuals who were following the Roman Model were to be condemned - not gay people in general. So even IF there were monogamous gays in the Corinthian community (which I doubt there were) this passage could be understood as excluding them from the "barred from the kingdom" list, and only including those homosexuals who were "offenders" - that is, gays who indulged in pederastic, permiscuous or non-monogamous sex.

HOWEVER! This nifty bit of textual exegesis is entirely pointless if we don't know the purpose of sex in God's mind. What does the Bible say on this matter? Nothing. It is silent on the matter of the purpose of sex. All it does say is that sexual immorality has to be avoided. From human experience, it appears there are three things that *could* be the purpose/s of sex:

1. An expression of love between two people.
2. A source of pleasure.
3. A way to produce offspring.

Now, sex obviously performs all these duties. However, which out of these is it's prime purpose? A prime purpose is what the act is actually for, while the others would only be subsidiary purposes, that do not stand up as a purpose in their own right. The Anglican Communion, I believe says that number 1. is of greatest importance. Now, if an expression of love between two, exclusive partneers is indeed the prime purpose of sex in God's view, then there cannot be said to be anything wrong with homosexuality if conducted in the same way as Christian heterosexual relationships are conducted. If however we believe the purpose of sex to be purely to produce children, then homosexuality is indeed wrong.

The reason why I am not "anti-gay" is that I believe that the only justification for homosexuality being wrong, (number 3 being the most important) leads us to a place that is, in my view, abhorrent. It renders one of the most beautiful and profound experiences in human existence into a base and vulgar act of physical replication. Why would God make sex so meaningful and the feelings so strong and pleasant if it was only for the purpose of making more people? By making sex appear as something unrighteous that is only a means to an end, something to get over with as quickly as possible, it demeans and degrades a vast part of the human experience. It also means that abortion in any context, even when the life of the mother is threatened massively, is wrong. It also means that contraception is evil. None of which the Anglican mainstream holds to be true. Thus, we have no scriptural or logical reason to oppose homosexuality, without resorting to hypocracy.

In my view, if a homosexual, priest or otherwise, honestly and truthfully, exposes himself in the eyes of God and is accepted by Him, then who are we, as sinners all, to judge them? In my view, Peter Akinola needs to take a good, long, hard look in the mirrior, and ask himself - "Am I better than God? If not, am I sinless? If not, am I right to judge?" I think Mr Akinola will be quite humbled by the response.

Elvendon.

[Mister Emu]

*** Mod Post ***

Please remember while respectful questions are welcome, no outside viewpoints/debate are/is allowed within Discuss Individual Religion forums. This particular forum is for the use Anglicans/Epspicopaleans(sp) to discuss and inform of their faith.

Certain posts have been deleted because of their debative nature.

Thank you.

[Holly]

I sincerely hope and pray that they do not split.

[sojourner]

It has always been the nature of the Anglican Church to find its voice in "the middle ground." I hope that we can continue to plot a faithful course through the polarization we find in this issue. I wish the most conservative of us would find a little more tolerance, and the most liberal a little less zeal. I think there is a middle ground here, and that that's where we'll find Christ.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by sojourner

It has always been the nature of the Anglican Church to find its voice in "the middle ground." I hope that we can continue to plot a faithful course through the polarization we find in this issue. I wish the most conservative of us would find a little more tolerance, and the most liberal a little less zeal. I think there is a middle ground here, and that that's where we'll find Christ.

I agree.