We interupt your flist for a brief look into the terrifying world of church politics.

[mari4212]

Bishop Gene Robinson might well be my new hero. (Unfortunately, the link goes to a flocked journal entry, posting something he's released publicly in an episcopalian community here on lj. I've quoted some sections that I think get to the heart of what he was saying below, in the comment thread.

ETA: And Steven Charleston as well: http://community.livejournal.com/episcopal/456423.html

For background info to understand this, for several years the Episcopal Church in America, like many other denominations, has been wrestling with how to deal with the presence and needs of gays/lesbians in our community. There have been a lot of arguments and problems on both sides of the issue, and several flashpoints where controversy has focused. Gene Robinson, in his presence as a Bishop in an openly gay relationship, is one of them, as is openly homosexual clergy in general and basically extending full rights to sacraments to openly homosexual people in the form of same-sex marriage.

At the same time as the Episcopal Church within America has been struggling with how to address this issue, other churches within the Anglican communion have been observing our choices with alarm, especially the Anglican Church in Nigeria, which seems to be serving as a spokeschurch for those who think we are being far too liberal.

At the last Primates meeting, (Yes, our head bishops are in fact referred to as a bunch of monkeys. No, it does not stop being funny.) the Episcopal church in America was basically ordered to stop making any efforts to extend marriage and ordination to our gay/lesbian/et cetera members, for the sake of those members of the rest of the Anglican Communion who still believe that homosexuality is completely wrong. A lot of references were made to Paul's argument about eating non-kosher meats and abstaining for the sake of the weaker members whose faith might be more easily swayed. Bishop Robinson's argument here is that by bowing to the demands of the rest of the Anglican Communion, we will be denying the needs of those who are here among us for the sake of other's sensitivities, and that that is unacceptable in the gospel message.

(Okay, so that's an incredibly brief and over-simplified rendition of the argument our Communion has been having with itself, and those who are interested would do well to do their own research into the subject, as this is mainly my interpretation of these events as a member of the laity, not as someone who's paid an exceptional amount of attention to this debate.)

Comments

[cat-mcdougall.livejournal.com]

At the last Primates meeting

At least they admit they're run by a bunch of poo slingers?

[/bad joke] *slinks off back into her hovel*

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

Give a thousand monkeys typewriters and in a thousand years they might come up with something coherent?

[cat-mcdougall.livejournal.com]

Whoever said religion was coherent?

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

touche.

[lady-tigerfish.livejournal.com]

*appreciates your Ryuk icon*

[ariadne-alecto.livejournal.com]

This is just going to be argued over for awhile, like the whole "how to achieve salvation" thing. I think everyone should just agree to disagree and to let each and every church decide for themselves how they wish to approach the subject of homosexuality.

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

Problem is, we are affiliated far more than average individual churches. It's very like the catholic church in the way that we are all connected within a country, and each country's church is in communion with the English church. What we do here in America does affect what they do in England, Nigeria, Australia, et cet. By our very structure, we can't do that individualization without schism.

[lady-tigerfish.livejournal.com]

It's not letting me see >>;; Says members only...

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I didn't realize it was flocked.

Here's a quote that covers his main points in response to the Presiding Bishop's report on the Primates' meeting.

I certainly believe Paul when he says that no part of the Body can say to another, “I don’t need you.” On the other hand, I don’t ever recall Jesus saying that the “greater whole” is the be all and end all. Doesn’t Jesus challenge the greater whole to sacrifice itself for those on the margins? Preaching good news to the poor, binding up the broken hearted, releasing the prisoners and proclaiming the year of the Lord’s favor involves SACRIFICE on the part of the greater whole. That’s part of what angered his own hometown synagogue when he preached these powerful words from Isaiah. Touching the leper required SACRIFICE of ancient and firmly held beliefs. Eating with sinners was a SACRIFICE of the greater whole’s sensitivities. I would humbly submit that such sacrifice is the only way that our “community maintains its integrity.”

...Where is the “justice, (steadfast) love, and mercy” for the Church’s gay and lesbian people in this threat from the primates? While the vast majority of the Anglican Communion AND the vast majority of Episcopalians may be willing to “forbear for a season,” the world’s gay and lesbian Anglicans long to hear the words spoken to Jesus at his baptism: “You are my beloved. In you I am well pleased.” Who will speak those words to them, while the rest of the Church forbears for a season? How will we explain this “forbearance” to all those gay and lesbian Christians who have come to The Episcopal Church because, for the first time ever, they have believed that there is a place for them AT God’s table, not simply BENEATH it, hoping for fallen scraps? Are THEIR souls not worthy of salvation too? Does anyone relish the notion of trying to explain all this “forbearance” to GOD?

[lady-tigerfish.livejournal.com]

Color me impressed. *applauds*

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

I know. Part of it is that he is one of those he is talking about reaching out to, and he's faced a lot of this discrimination himself, but it still makes me want to hug him so much.

There's a reason he won a 75% majority in his election as bishop, when most bishops receive a plurality of 30-40%.

[liret.livejournal.com]

Wow. I like this guy.

[glacierscout.livejournal.com]

I'm also a member of the community in which the response was posted, and I suggested that the response be unlocked. It has been unlocked; the poster just locked it out of reflex from his/her own journal. You can now read the whole thing.

[lady-tigerfish.livejournal.com]

Thank you very much ^_^ I hope all is well in Dayton.

[liret.livejournal.com]

What's in the first one? It's locked.

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I didn't see the lock when I was reading it before.

I put a couple of the major points in my comment to lady_tigerfish above. Basically he's stating that by giving in to the demands of the other Primates, we'd be turning our backs on our GLBT members.

[glacierscout.livejournal.com]

I'm also a member of the community in which the response was posted, and I suggested that the response be unlocked. It has been unlocked; the poster just locked it out of reflex from his/her own journal. You can now read the whole thing.

[ljmckay.livejournal.com]

*prepares to be chased with dangerous and/or rotten objects*

I will admit I am one of those who believe homosexuality is wrong. But it's always been a "love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of thing for me. Do I believe gay people can't be saved? Of course not; we're all sinners. That's kind of the whole point. Do I think gay people should be shunned from the church? No; God loves them just as much as anyone else and so should we.

But while we should love them and accept them, we should not tolerate (what I view as) sinful behavior. If a straight couple were doing something wrong, they should be chastised (with love and a view toward correction, not ejection). So too should our homosexual brethren.

I'm not looking for argument here (though I anticipate much); I'm just letting y'all know another view...

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

Aww, sweetie, you know I would never chase you with rotten objects. Or let anyone else chase you, for that matter. You're always free to disagree with me here.

Starting out with, you know we have different ideas about homosexuality. My personal belief is that an orientation in itself is not sinful, but that there are abuses of sexuality that are sinful. Those abuses happen with both heterosexual and homosexual people, and I don't believe either orientation is more prone to it.

It's just that the Primates pretty much ordered us to stop doing what we feel called to do, to stop ministering actively to people we view as our brothers and sisters in the church, because of their beliefs.

There's a lot of divided opinion within the Episcopal church itself over this. (We're divided over everything, this is no exception.) Therefore, we've been pursuing a middle path, and those who support gay rights have sacrificed a lot to get the limited support and acceptance we have right now. And then to have outside parties step in and try to force us to give up every step we have made in reaching out to GLBT people, it's like a slap in the face as we're being told that beliefs that we have struggled with and prayed over are wrong.

I've looked at the seven-odd verses in the Bible that are pointed out as condemning homosexuality, I've wrestled with their meaning and come to my own conclusions. To be told that not only are my thoughts and prayers over those verses wrong, but that those seven verses are more important than the hundreds of verses where we are called to go out to the weak, the abused, to those abandoned by society, it's rather painful.

[patagonian.livejournal.com]

This church is either truly open to all, or it is closed to the Spirit.

I like this guy. And what in the world is the origin of "The Primates." For real, I can't stop snickering like an immature teenaged boy.

[glacierscout.livejournal.com]

Although thinking of the ecclesiastical primates as a band of monkeys is amusing (and surprisingly correct), both names come from a common Latin root of Primus, first or primatus, one who is first.

The Catholic church was organized with the Pope at the top, supported by the College of cardinals (who are vested in red, and apparently gave their name to the bird). His authority went downward to the bishops, who presided over geographic areas, each known as a diocese. Generally, there was one diocese or cathedral within any region where the most senior, most authoritative bishop resided, and the pope often worked through this bishop to supervise the other bishops in the region. This bishop was sometimes thought of as the "first among equals", or "first" bishop - the "Primatus". The Episcopal Church has chucked out the Pope, but we still elect one bishop as a "Presiding Bishop" to take care of the administration of the National church. In England, that's the Archbishop of Canterbury. In the United States, the presiding Bishop is elected for a nine-year term. We've kept the name "Primate" for the heads of the different national churches.

Apes, chimpanzees and humans were named "Primates" because, in our egocentrical point of view, we are "first" among all the animals.

[patagonian.livejournal.com]

You know, now that you say it, I really felt I ought to have picked up on the whole "primate" thing - it just makes a lot of sense. I was too busy giggling I think.