Crap apologies
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend and Right Honorable Justin Welby, has "apologised" to the LGBTI community for continuing to throw them under the bus in the interests of Anglican unity.
I'm pretty sure he see that as the least bad option. Sure, queer people will continue to be oppressed up to the point of torture and death ('throwing them under the bus' is alarmingly literal in some parts of the Anglican Communion), but the unity of the church is more important than that. This seems a bizarre set of priorities to people who don't believe in the supernatural, but I don't doubt that it is a sincere belief on his part. It's probably easier for him to stomach since he will only be directly responsible for lesser oppression like sacking queer people for getting married, the Church having cleverly secured a specific exemption in law so that they can legally do what any other employer would be in big trouble for. But again, I don't doubt that he feels badly about it, but is able to balance that in his heart against the immaterial good that is generated by doing it. I'm certainly not one to decry compromise and pragmatism in general, but I find myself here wanting to cry, like Elijah, "How long go ye limping between the two sides?". One of them is a great evil.
Apologies are funny things, aren't they? Often they really mean something like "I'm sorry I got caught", or "I'm sorry I am being forced to apologise". Despite what one might hope, it's unusual for them to be accompanied by a sincere desire to change behaviour and a commitment to make amends. This situation is clearly not an exception. I think his Grace may discover that the LGBTI community find his apology just as enraging as those opposed to tuition fees found Nick Clegg's.
It feels very strange as an atheist to be wishing fervently that the Archbishop of Canterbury would pay more attention to the Christian virtues of righteousness and repentance.
This entry crossposted to http://doug.dreamwidth.org/310095.html, where there are
comment(s) not shown here.
I'm pretty sure he see that as the least bad option. Sure, queer people will continue to be oppressed up to the point of torture and death ('throwing them under the bus' is alarmingly literal in some parts of the Anglican Communion), but the unity of the church is more important than that. This seems a bizarre set of priorities to people who don't believe in the supernatural, but I don't doubt that it is a sincere belief on his part. It's probably easier for him to stomach since he will only be directly responsible for lesser oppression like sacking queer people for getting married, the Church having cleverly secured a specific exemption in law so that they can legally do what any other employer would be in big trouble for. But again, I don't doubt that he feels badly about it, but is able to balance that in his heart against the immaterial good that is generated by doing it. I'm certainly not one to decry compromise and pragmatism in general, but I find myself here wanting to cry, like Elijah, "How long go ye limping between the two sides?". One of them is a great evil.
Apologies are funny things, aren't they? Often they really mean something like "I'm sorry I got caught", or "I'm sorry I am being forced to apologise". Despite what one might hope, it's unusual for them to be accompanied by a sincere desire to change behaviour and a commitment to make amends. This situation is clearly not an exception. I think his Grace may discover that the LGBTI community find his apology just as enraging as those opposed to tuition fees found Nick Clegg's.
It feels very strange as an atheist to be wishing fervently that the Archbishop of Canterbury would pay more attention to the Christian virtues of righteousness and repentance.
This entry crossposted to http://doug.dreamwidth.org/310095.html, where there are
comment(s) not shown here.