Anglican Church - time to split?

[The Fool]

I read the following on a Liberal Christian site I am a member of:

I think the time has come for a civilised and reasonable split so that we can create an inclusive and open Anglican option where we can proclaim our liberal Gospel without fear of definement of heresy from those who share our denomination, and where gay people will be warmly welcomed and their relationships liturgically recognised.

Question is - is this a reasonable position to take?

For example, should the Anglican Church be seeking internal reconcilliation and thus strengthen itself through unity.

Or has all time for that passed - is it time for the gay Christians to remove themselves entirely from the mainstream Anglican Church?

[mikie8]

same same

your question is to ask if a mainstream belief shall change so it incorparates the lives of others or should others leave and start a new belief which god fits them

i find it hard to understand why religion should keep on changing so ppl will be part of gods whole and not that ppl should change to fit gods will , this is the problem with organised religion it has changed so much just to fit in so ppl feel like good christians when a good christian will fit thier life to christs teachings .is gods message for us to mannipulate to emulate our modern lives or for us to emulate christs life ?

[DeaconJustin]

Question is - is this a reasonable position to take? For example, should the Anglican Church be seeking internal reconcilliation and thus strengthen itself through unity. Or has all time for that passed - is it time for the gay Christians to remove themselves entirely from the mainstream Anglican Church?

Simply put, absolutely not; it is in no way reasonable to split so that Anglican Christianity can be re-defined to suit absolutely everyone's needs. The decision to consecrate a homosexual man in a sexually active relationship was momentous to be sure, and highly unilateral. It is not in line with the historic interpretation of scripture, nor broader church tradition. Liturgical recongnition for homosexual unions can really only come after an ecumenical council; Homosexual activity, like a plethora of other sexual activities, is a religious sin and not a secular ethical "sin." Christian teaching since the beginning of the Church has taught that this sort of activity is not in line with Christian morality; and, one area where Christians have always stood out is sexual restraint and refrain from bowing to popular conceptions of sexuality; in Rome, pedastry was practised; in Rome, men took on same-sex partners in addition to wives. Christians did none of this.

Homosexual relationships and unions hurt no-one. There is no reason they should not be legally recognized. From a standpoint of Christian morality and ethics, I don't believe we can legitimately bless homosexual unions.

The cry in the ECUSA has been that the Church must sanction these unions because homosexaulity exists and Jesus loves all. It does, and Christ does love all. He never capitulated to the cultural mores of the time, he never hesitated to say "Go and sin no more" while still loving.

The theology commission of the ECUSA house of bishops spoke out against this, the primates spoke out against this, and even Archbishop Rowan Williams(though he has no -personal- problem blessing or ordaining practising homosexuals) begged the ECUSA not to do this.

Had the teaching of the Church changed on the matter, it would not have been an issue. It did not.

[Siege]

The thing is, as an Episcopalian in Pittsburgh, I'm pretty much at the exact point where the split will take place if it does. Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh has been the most vocal of the American bishops who oppose Father Robinson's consecration as bishop. I've also been arguing for homosexuality over at theStraight Dope Message Board. The church I attend is in favor of Father Robinson's consecration, and there is more to this story than the mere issue of homosexuality.

Twenty-five years ago, arguments were made against the ordination of women, including the lack of scriptural basis for it and the lack of historical precedent or tradition. Paul specifically states "Women shall be silent in church." 150 years ago, the Bible was used to justify slavery in the United States. The Episcopal Church of the USA had managed not to split over either of those two highly controversial issues. I am honestly not sure that won't happen this time.

I am straight, myself, but with some rather nasty stuff in my background. At a time in my life when kindness was a very rare thing, a fellow in my year at school befriended me and showed me kindness, at some risk to himself or at least his reputation. He is a fine, decent, courageous, morally upstanding, intelligent, and curious person. Oh, and Brian, I've also given him the address of this website. Over 15 years after we'd left school, I found out he was gay. Neither that knowledge, nor the knowledge that he and his partner recently celebrated their 10th anniversary changes my view that he is one of the most moral people I know.

If homosexuality is condemned at all, it is only done so in somewhat vague and nebulous terms, usually as part of a list of other sins. The church has ordained greedy and grasping priests. I've yet to be in a church which doesn't have certain amount of gossip. From what I've been able to see, Father Robinson is a good, decent, moral human being who happens to love another man. Before He said, "Go and sin no more," Christ said, "Neither do I condemn thee." I cannot and will not condemn my friend.

CJ

[DeaconJustin]

Originally Posted by Siege

Twenty-five years ago, arguments were made against the ordination of women, including the lack of scriptural basis for it and the lack of historical precedent or tradition. Paul specifically states "Women shall be silent in church." 150 years ago, the Bible was used to justify slavery in the United States. The Episcopal Church of the USA had managed not to split over either of those two highly controversial issues. I am honestly not sure that won't happen this time.

If homosexuality is condemned at all, it is only done so in somewhat vague and nebulous terms, usually as part of a list of other sins. The church has ordained greedy and grasping priests. I've yet to be in a church which doesn't have certain amount of gossip. From what I've been able to see, Father Robinson is a good, decent, moral human being who happens to love another man. Before He said, "Go and sin no more," Christ said, "Neither do I condemn thee." I cannot and will not condemn my friend.

CJ

It's not really similar to women's ordination. Women's ordination is a matter of discipline. In the likes of Phoebe, Priscilla, and more likely than not Mary of Migdala we find examples of women leading congregations of the early church. Women were ordained to holy orders, at least to the order of deaconess until around 900AD(I'm not exactly certain as to the date and can't easily look it up atm). This also brings up the issue of the Pauline epistles; if you ask me, canonizing them was a mistake. They're basically pastoral letters from a bishop to other members of the Church; these letters deal with things in specific parts of the world, for specific flocks. Paul did not say "all women everywhere must be silent in Church," he spoke out against a specific sort of unquiet in church. He never condemned the ministries of Phoebe or Priscilla, and if he thought that women were not supposed to speak in church period he surely would have. We don't kevetch about women braiding their hair, do we? Paul also said that was a no-no. It's not a sign of wealth, vanity, or ostentatiousness in modern times; it was then.

And, though I'm an Anglican-rite Old Catholic I would certainly hope the ECUSA doesn't split over this. I do think that the majority of African provinces will sever ties at some point in the near future.

As for homosexuality, one of the seven mitzvot which gentiles are supposed to abide explicitly condemns sexual immorality.

Lev. 18: 22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

The argument that homosexuality is nebulously condemned is rather vapid. Paul mentions many sins in that same list, and we don't consider them to be sin any less.

And lastly, no one is condemning any person. I haven't heard of any conservative bishop(outside of Africa) say anything that could be construed as a condemnation of Robinson for being who he is. If I were to start regularly sleeping with a woman I would get the same "condemnation" that Robinson is getting; essentially, "What you're doing is not right." Not "who you are is not right." I've also had polyamorous relationships in years past; just because it truly seems to be a natural inclination to me doesn't mean that Christianity embraces polygamy as the ideal. I'd also get the same "condemnation" from my fellows if I were in a polygamous relationship(solemnized or not).

[sachetm]

If one accepts scripture as the word of God and as the basis for truth, then it would make sense to argue against homosexuality. (Although I was raised an Episcopalian, I now attend a Unitarian/Universalist Church.)

It has been very clear to me for some time that man writes and God creates. IOW, "writing" the Bible as an instruction manual for man would presume intervention on God's part--a direct contradiction to the concept of free will. Either we have it or we don't. It can't, within my logic system, be both. When God created the universe, he would have done it exactly the way he wanted and intended it--no second guessing after the fact--right from the git-go. We may think of God as a father but he's not--he's our creator (assuming one accepts the notion of a God, at all). Our father is our father, and lives in time and the world right along with us. Our father might give us ongoing instruction, but that notion of God seems to deny God's nature, as well as that of freedom of choice.

If the Bible isn't God's word, then what is it? Again, IMHO, it is a book of wisdom. Many writers may well have been very much in touch with God, but many were merely echoing the thought of their time. Thus, we find much of the silliness of Leviticus (e.g., "rules" on selling ones daughters into slavery).

Back when the Bible was written, humanity's ongoing survival was not as assured as it was today. As one likely learns in basic biology or even psychology, any species has two fundamental goals: survival of the individual and survival of the species. Therefore, enouraging, cajoling, chastising, and any other device that encouraged man to procreate and discouraged behaviors that discouraged that would be frowned upon and institutionalized. I don't believe Jesus ever spoke on or is reported to have addressed the issue of homosexuality, so it was apparently of minor concern to him.

The real point, it seems to me, is whether someone can lead a good life--the kind Jesus and any other number of others talked about, regardless of their sexual orientation. My experience is, most definitely. In fact, given our current problems with overpopulation (so obvious to me but so little discussed), I think homosexuals are helping ensure the survival of the species in this day and age. However, looking to ancient wisdom for all the answers to modern problems is, I believe, missing a great deal of wisdom to be had.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by nil

There should be two Anglican churches, one for the children of satan=liberals, and one for real Christians

LOL
i think that is pretty close to what we have today.

hmmmm

[Basstian]

Ok Christians *Trying my best to sound like a teacher*

When we make ouselves a god that believes the way we want him to what do we call it????

Starts with an I and ends with an Y

[truthseeker]

ooh! ooh! ooh!

I know, Teacher!!

Pick ME!!!!!


Is it - Idolatry?!?

[I, Brian]

Just a point of note that I removed nil's earlier post from this thread.

[Basstian]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

ooh! ooh! ooh!

I know, Teacher!!

Pick ME!!!!!


Is it - Idolatry?!?

Thats right A+

[truthseeker]

YYEEESSSS!!!!!

LOL

Praise God

[Quahom1]

Based on Comparative-Religion's specific guidelines to what should be posted on the Christianity forum, this thread should would be better suited on the Politics and Society forum.


v/r

Q

[I, Brian]

Well - it's about politics within the Church of England.

Speaking of which, the Church of Scotland has come out in favour of gay priests:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4374249.stm

Is this the end of a single Anglican Communion?

[truthseeker]

Of course it is. You know how this thing goes...