Simon writes:
"The Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1.10 was not “adopted by all Anglican bishops”, but rather the vote was: 526 in favour and 70 against, with 45 abstentions."

Hmmm, having gained such a substantial majority, I don't think "adopted by all Anglican bishops" is too wide of the mark, since the minority might be presumed to be willing to accept the majority decision. (OK, as a trade union activist currently involved in a dispute, I know that isn't always so, but I would hope that a bishop would behave better than a scab!)

Don't forget though that another 60 or so bishops didn't even bother to attend or vote: the attendance at the conference was about 730.

So the total in favour was about 73% of those eligible to have voted.

Does anybody else find it appalling that people who aren't in the least affected by the outcome are allowed to "vote" about how gay people are supposed to conduct our lives, and how much spiritual help and succor we can therefore expect from the Church?

After said voters have continually and studiously ignored other Lambeth Resolutions to devote time and effort to scientific study of the issue? After they've ignored repeated calls to devote time to discussing the issue in their Provinces and Dioceses, and to put some effort into pastoral care for people affected by their "vote"?

Rather than calling us names, and belittling us - their alleged brothers and sisters in Christ - in the press, for example?

This gives me the absolute shivers. Pardon me if I'm not much impressed by Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1.10.

http://andrewcarey.classicalanglican.net/?p=40

Is your link supposed to contribute something *constructive*, Neil? Because all I got from it ("Whose fault is it?") is Mr. Carey accusing me of "reject[ing] charges", while I "launch a full-scale assault on everyone else." (?!?!) [And finally, (paraphrased) "Shaddup already!"]

If Carey were to *ask me* what my "tactics" are ("latest", First, Last & Always), I would be only too glad to tell him: "Lift high the Cross, the love of Christ proclaim!"

[JCF, taking a break from my "full-scale assault"! *g*]

I don't think any of these comments has been very helpful actually, including J.C. Fisher's last one.

It seems to me that the time has come (to say no more) for all the sides in this sorry dispute to stop trying to assign the blame for the situation we are in. It doesn't matter any more -- neither side is perfect and both sides have made mistakes.

We also need to stop trying to win. When we disagree this bitterly about the interpretation of Scripture, then the stakes are very high, and it seems unlikely that anyone who has spent a lot of time praying about, and thinking about, and having discussions about, the issue of same-sex relationships in the church is now going to change his or her mind.

So where do we go from here? Do we walk apart? Or do we find ways to live together in God's house?

I pray to God that we never walk apart. I personally see no convincing reason why we cannot live together despite our disagreements. I do not think this needs to be a communion-breaking issue. Let's strive to go forward, in full acknowledgement of our disagreements, but also in full acknowledgement that the core doctrines of the church remain central to all parties and that what we share in common -- which is after all nothing less than the saving love of God in Christ -- is still stronger than our disagreements. My fear is that the bitterness of the debate, the name-calling, the attempts to pin fault on one side or the other, the drive to be right, has already compromised our vision of the church and our calling to be one too much.

Paul reminds us that what we bear, we bear in clay vessels, the divine life held within our fragile and limited humanity. We need to be humble and loving in our assertions with one another. I wish that everyone else in the church agreed with me on everything from liturgical reform to same-sex blessings. But they don't and they never will. I'm doubtless wrong about some or even all of the opinions I hold most dear about the interpretation of the Bible. And God knows I should never forget that (though of course I do).

This is why I think the recent report of the Anglican Church of Canada's theological commission is so important. To me it is the first thing in a long time that, instead of going back over old ground, tries to find a way forward, a way to talk about the thing on which there is disagreement without tearing ourselves apart. We need to find that way forward for the whole communion.

Abigail

Amen. Blessings to you, Abigail.

Abigail, this issue is central to our lives as gay people, although I realize it's quite marginal for most others. It affects us every moment of our lives, so you see: it's not really a matter of "choosing sides" or wanting to be "right." We are fighting for our physcial and spiritual lives, and our opponent is the entire Christian world, not just conservatives in the Anglican Communion. The entire world, really. Christians, and others, do not want us to survive and thrive, plain and simple; in order to have decent lives we must battle the hatred and contempt directed our way. It's life-and-death for us; it's a matter of a point in theology for everybody else.

It's not a matter of "agreeing" with same-sex blessings, either, or even with the fact that Christians in America are now busy outlawing civil unions. Gay people in many parts of the world are put to death or imprisoned; we are harassed and beaten everywhere.

I agree with what you're saying, in theory, but you must realize that in reality this is a completely asymmetrical battle. The point is: why do people think they can "vote" on our lives? By what right? This is symptomatic of the problem, and unless these issues start to get some attention, I don't really see what good a false "unity" is. How can we "walk together" with people who see us as contemptible and beneath their concern?

Gay people are some of the Church's most faithful Christians, you know. But perhaps this issue simply isn't important to most people in the Church; that could definitely be the case. If so, I think you'll end up "walking together" without us.

In any case, ECUSA has been praised by Rowan Williams for its response to the Windsor Report. Why, then, are you claiming that all we're doing is "trying to win," when even the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't agree with you?

And why is it out-of-bounds to ask conservatives to recognize that they have obligations also? Here are some quotes from the site linked above, BTW:

In 1998, a whole sub section devoted time to human sexuality. It is true that the sub-section abandoned the idea of a presentation by Changing Attitude because the experiences of ex-gays and celibate gays were not included.....In the Global South – regional meetings were held to plan for the Lambeth Conference in 1998. A range of issues were discussed including homosexuality, but the bishops universally decided that they didn’t want homosexuality to be a priority for discussion at their 10-yearly meeting.

This is pur forward as "compliance" - and it's also stated that the Anglican Communion has "spent far too much time on this issue."

This comment is for bls specifically.

I am sorry if I appeared to be dismissive of the roles or contributions of gays in the church -- that wasn't remotely close to what I meant. What I want is for all sides to be able to co-exist in the church while still disagreeing on some points, whether it's the ordination of women or same-sex blessings, because I don't think we are going to be able to agree on those points. I certainly don't want a 'us' and 'them' situation, with gay Christians on one side of the room and straight Christians on another! That's one reason I belong to the Anglican Church and not to the Metropolitan Community Church....

I just think we all need to face some hard facts, and I think we all have to let go of the desire for certain kinds of victories. But I think that is the only way to start forward together.

Abigail

Bit of a rambling response I'm afraid:

I'm not sure what "constructive" means in this context. I posted the Andrew Carey link to illustrate that there are two sides to every story for truly Thinking Anglicans: the suggestion that the Anglican Communion has not addressed the question of homosexual relationships is not universally accepted.

In subsequent posts, there's talk of gays being belittled, called names and shown contempt. And I don't see any evidence for that.

Surely we are skirting around the point that whether a bishop at Lambeth (or you or me now for that matter) vote for or against something is in the end not really the issue in God's church. I can hold one very strong view. You can hold another. We can both use our votes as we choose.

But the important point is what does *God* think? It is His church afterall. He doesn't belittle, call names or show contempt (either). But He does say some things are wrong and some things are right. Some things need to be repented of and some things are righteous in his sight. Some things lead to eternity in heaven. Some things lead to eternity in hell.

And Bishops have the awesome responsibility under God of leading His church. That's their role surely. We don't know that the homosexuality issue doesn't effect any of them personally but, even if it doesn't, that cannot silence them. They have a duty to be faithful to the Lord and on any subject to stand by what they believe the Lord to say.

And any political party which received 73% of the eligible vote would consider it had a pretty big majority.

Sorry for losing it, Abigail; I just get very tired of being talked about, as if gay people were just another "issue" for everybody to discuss. (I'm not addressing this comment to you, BTW. It was the discussion of the "vote" above that got me.)

I really do think it's time, though, for the Church as a whole to speak out, forcefully, against violence against, and persecution of, gay people - including that sponsored by governments - and not just pretend it's done so, or simply ignore the issue. Religion is almost always the source of this; Christianity has been very much implicated in it in the past, and the Church now has an obligation, IMO. I'm sure, in fact, it would have already spoken out about this if it were any other issue or any other group of people involved. I think this has to be part of any reconciliation agreement; ECUSA has responded to the Windsor report, and ++Williams has been pleased - but the Church hasn't been asked to do anything, itself.

I really wonder, though, if things like this - the "vote" at Lambeth, I mean - aren't part of the problem. I don't agree with the Catholic Church's argument on this issue, obviously - I think it's wrong and very harmful - but at least it's an argument. Something that's been worked out theologically, if badly, and put out there in the open for everyone to see. But in the Anglican Communion, we allow people (who aren't personally affected!) to "vote" on other peoples' lives. Apparently no explanations are required; we just get the thumbs down, and we're all supposed to accept that with good grace. I don't get it.

We think of Rome as authoritarian, but what is this, exactly? I think we need to consider what exactly this kind of thing means. And I think we need real discussion between and among people, and this "vote" is symptomatic of whatever problem we're having doing so.

So that was the source of my original comment.

Hi Abigail, As bis is indicating, the wish that this would just all go away; that we could agree to disagree; doesn't seem like a real prospect. The huge amount of space on this and other sites devoted to sexuality issues shows that the issue isn't simple or non-essential (not to mention the statements by Bishops Conferences and Primates Meetings!).

However, the real debate is about assumptions rather than issues: Are the teachings of Christ and the Apostles as recorded in the New Testament the source of authority in matters of faith and practice for Christians ? (whence my position, that the bible writers clearly and repeatedly wrote that having sex with a person of the same sex as you is a sin). Or to what extent can we discount what was written if we can show that the writers were unaware of significant issues of human nature ? (JCFs repeated assertion that the bible says nothing about homosexuality...) Can we claim that because groups of people with certain sexual orientations see their sexuality as central to their self-identity (maybe claiming "God made me this way"), that we must assume that their orientations MUST be righteous in God's eyes ? (bis's assumption as far as I can see)

No-one is claiming that homosexual behaviour is the ONLY sexual sin. However, I don't see why classifying certain sexual desires as orientations (L/G, Bi or Trans) should change Christian teaching on whether the associated behaviours are righteous. And there are other groups of people with other sexualities who are also trying to use the same line of reasoning (polyamory, trisexuals, BDSM/kink/fetish).

But this trend is not just restricted to sexuality; should the current huge numbers of divorces, non-marital relationships etc change Christian teaching on those behaviours ? Some seem to think so, but what has changed ? Many people doing something doesn't make it right!! (Of course not, though there is massive need for pastoral compassion in dealing with people in all sorts of situations.) But sexual sins are not the only sins, WE ARE ALL SINNERS (at least all Anglicans are) !!!!

Christianity was defined by Christ and the Apostles 2000 years ago (apart for some details of application of some teachings). Regarding "righteous" sexual bahaviour they set very narrow limits. I'm repeatedly surprised by people who don't seem to see this, or think that they are an exception!

Dave, the claim is not that our sexuality is central to our identity. The claim is that by outlawing our sexuality, the Church kills off any ability for us to enter into close loving relationship with another human being - something that I believe is central to human life and identity. I'm sure you don't think of your own sexuality as central to your identity - but what would life be like for you if you couldn't ever express it during your entire lifetime? Please think the implications of this through seriously.

Gay people fall in love with people of our own gender, and love is something that can't and shouldn't be excised from human beings. I think many heterosexuals continue to see us as defective straight people - but we're not; we're gay. The Catholic Catechism itself, in 1975, recognized that homosexuality is "deep-seated," and that the number of gay people is "not negligible."

So what does the Church really expect us to do? We're "called to celibacy," according to the Catholic Church - except that most of us haven't heard the call ourselves. Anyway, I thought a "call" of this type was from God, not from other people or from the Church. If that's what the Church is really going to demand, I don't think you'll find many gay people in it for very long; certainly people who've been in a relationship for decades will leave the Church rather than leaving their partner, to whom they've made a promise of mutual support. (And wouldn't this be "righteous" behavior, in fact? The honoring of one's commitments, I mean?)

The Apostles apparently weren't aware of such a thing as "homosexual orientation." We are, today. If the Church can't take this into account and adjust, it will be the poorer, IMO. Perhaps we really will end up in segregated Churches; it wouldn't be the first time.

BIS WROTE: "The claim is that by outlawing our sexuality, the Church kills off any ability for us to enter into close loving relationship with another human being - something that I believe is central to human life and identity. I'm sure you don't think of your own sexuality as central to your identity - but what would life be like for you if you couldn't ever express it during your entire lifetime? Please think the implications of this through seriously."

HI BIS, Some of this is old ground - here is a previous discussion (though not finished yet!):

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1123

I don't think that my sexuality is "God given" or completely static, or righteously perfect, or not subject to God's moral judgement.... so why should yours be sacrosanct ?

Plenty of evangelical women never marry because of their conviction that they should only marry a committed Christian, and of the lamentable lack of commited Christian men. That is not so different from the situation of a Christian friend of mine who has a 100% homosexual "orientation" and so has decided to stay celebate to follow his Christian convictions.

And "close loving relationship with another human being" is not the same as homo-sexual partnership. I've had close loving relationships with women and men, but didn't have to enter into a sexual partnership with them.

If you think that you MUST HAVE a sexual partnership to be fulfilled, haven't you got sex out of proportion ?! After all according to Christ there is neither male or female in heaven, nor marriage, so we're all going to have to get used to something else.

BIS WROTE: "I think many heterosexuals continue to see us as defective straight people - but we're not; we're gay."

Gay/Straight is too simplistic anyway. The sexualities experienced by people are not bi-polar (Gay<>Straight) or even linear (GayStraight). There are different dimensions of sexuality (eg Gay<>Straight, mono <> poly; subdom etc).

BIS WROTE: "We're "called to celibacy," according to the Catholic Church - except that most of us haven't heard the call ourselves."

I'm not saying that you have to stay celebate, but that if you want to follow NT teachings, and those of the church for the last 2000 years, you can't have a homo-sexual partnership.

BIS WROTE: "The Apostles apparently weren't aware of such a thing as "homosexual orientation." We are, today."

Err, they were aware that people had consensual sex with people of the same sex... presumably they realised these people were sexually attracted to each other ?

OK, Dave, you win. You're right. The only solution is to leave the Church.

I should have realized that long ago. It's a very, very unhealthy atmosphere - and it's getting worse.

I'll be much happier simply staying away. This has been coming on for a long time anyway.

Hi Bis, I don't think that self-denial is unhealthy, I think it's unavoidable for all of us - in different aspects of each persons life.

Neither is preaching Christian ideals, and the fact that falling short is a sin, the same as saying "I hate you". Piles of people are sexually sinful in various ways, especially in todays culture. Like me, you'd be welcome in the church I attend on the same basis as the rest of us sinners:-

God loves sinners....

Dave ; don'tknow about bls , but I wouldn't attend your church for any amount of money.

Lets make it clear. The Church needs to change Orthodox, traditional Christianity also needs to change. And personally, I would rather we were not all in the same denomination, because we will never agree, simply because we do not believe the same things.

So, we have a choice. Agree to differ, agree to differ and split voluntarily,in a civilised manner, or conmtinue to tear ourselves to bits whilst some wring their hands, hoping for unity.

There can only be unity if there is genuine agreement. In this case, there isn't. Any unity would be a shabby compromise of organisational structure - not hearts and minds.

I won't be changing my mind. It doesn't natter what arguments you put forward, I just don;t believe in the same sort of Christianity as you. And I am sure that you feel the same way.

You might be right Mike, but I try to be optimistic that as many people as possible will realise that you can't just reinvent Christianity.
In my view, part of the problem liberal people have is that they are too influenced by the spirit of the age. This is probably not a new phenomenon.. people always seem to reinvent God to suit themselves.. and it avoids being too socially unacceptable, but it is certainly causing problems for the church as surrounding society drifts towards who-knows-what.

I worry that "liberal" churches, left to define themselves, would just end up being universalist religious-humanist, with no noticeable christian uniqueness, except maybe the vestments!

Mike, I'm still not sure I think the alternatives are so bleak as you make them! What makes the report of the Theological Commission so helpful, it seems to me, is that it is essentially proposing a third category, between adiaphora and core doctrine, for doctrines that do not touch on the essentials of the faith. Maybe we need a new word! But the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, as I understand it, affirmed a comparatively short list of core, defining doctrines for the Anglican Communion. Without in any way meaning to imply that matters like same-sex blessings, the ordination of women, or the remarriage of divorced persons are unimportant, I cannot see how agreement on those issues is fundamental in the way that agreement on the Nicene Creed is.

So I continue to hope that the Anglican Church of Canada at least can continue to accomodate disagreements on the issue of same-sex marriage, and that we can all live together in the church. I don't want to worship in a ghetto!

Dave, I think you are mistaken about the unchanging nature of Christianity -- It seems to me that the role of the Holy Spirit is to lead us into growth, and that growth necessarily brings change with it. My reading of the OT suggests to me that God's people grew and changed in their perceptions and understanding of God and God's Law over the course of the events that are described there. The NT covers a much shorter period of time and so it doesn't seem to me that that kind of change is very evident in the NT, but I do think we see that kind of change in the life of the church since NT times. I think we need to be open to the possibility that the Spirit will lead us into new truths, unexpected truths. Now I expect we are always going to disagree about how to recognise the Spirit's leading, but that's yet another reason why we need to be open to a degree of disagreement in the church!

bls, I hope you don't give up on the church! It belongs, after all, not to any of us human "gate-keepers" but to God, who eagerly waits to welcome his sons and daughters in. Sometimes the human institution that has grown up around God's church gets things all wrong, but it also gets things all right sometimes too!

Abigail

Oh, and the Lambeth Resolution did not actually oppose gay ordination or same sex blessing; all that it said was that it could not recommend them.