From a
New York Times article about the Anglican Church in North America, i.e. the people who want to leave so they don't catch teh gay:
“I think this organization does not have much of a future because there are already a lot of churches in the United States for people who don’t want to worship with gays and lesbians,” [Jim Naughton, canon for
(
Read more... )
Comments 11
It will be interesting to see exactly what happens, at least from a distance. I expect it will be ugly.
Reply
It's the really big issue in the international Anglican Communion, too. The North Americans and the Europeans are all about inclusivity, but the fastest-growing parts of the church are in Africa, which is extremely conservative about sexuality. It's caused me to realize that in societies where most people don't choose their own marriage partners anyway, the idea of same-sex marriage just seems incomprehensible and confusing.
Reply
Right. I've been following this for quite a while.
It's caused me to realize that in societies where most people don't choose their own marriage partners anyway, the idea of same-sex marriage just seems incomprehensible and confusing.
I'm not sure that has as much to do with it as much as the promotion of the view that there's only one way to be married, which sadly, doesn't seem restricted to societies like that - witness Prop 8 etc.
Reply
I think that is true in the West, but it's really a mistake to assume that people in radically different societies construe family relationships the same way we do -- witness Madonna's botched adoption, where the aunts and uncles expected to raise the child after his parents were gone. Support for same-sex marriage is really an outgrowth of the notion that marriage can be based upon romantic love, which is actually a pretty modern idea. In most times and places, marriage has been seen as socio-economic relationship between families and it's historically unusual for the two principal partners to have a whole lot of say about the undertaking.
Reply
Reply
One thing that amused me was not only that they're homophobic, but (this was not headlined) they also include parishes/dioceses that left the Anglican Church because it was ordaining women. Not that this is surprising, of course.
But the article made it clear that this division (about women priests) is an unresolved one, in this new group. They're going to figure it out later, apparently, and in the mean time let each diocese decide for itself.
I predict that this should prove an interesting apple of discord. That, along with the property disputes, should undermine their chances of succeeding. Heh.
Reply
I've followed the issues about women priests, but it doesn't touch parishes as directly. The numbers being what they are, there are plenty of parishes with all male staffs, so it doesn't stand out as a particularly discriminatory practice when it's done on purpose. It's not so difficult to just avoid dealing with ordained women, but it's gotten a lot harder to ignore gay presence in the church.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment