Wednesday, 26 March 2008

Canadian chronology

The Anglican Journal has published this Chronology of the same-sex debate in the Anglican Church of Canada from 1975 to 2008, which also includes a number of interesting photos.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 26 March 2008 at 11:01pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Canada
Comments

It is always interesting to see how long this dispute has been going on for --- especially given the many people who feel that there has not been an adequate time for studying it or listening to both sides.

Posted by: Margaret on Thursday, 27 March 2008 at 4:50am GMT

It would depend on the Effort made, if at all, not on the Time mis-spent, wouldn't it Margaret?

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 27 March 2008 at 9:21am GMT

"listening to both sides"

The kinds of things said by conservatives about homosexuality show that they simply have not listened. Worse, even when the things that prove this are pointed out to them, they still don't get it. They are far more preoccupied with defending their right to remain ignorant of gay people than they are in dispelling that ignorance. So, Margaret, how much time is enough time for listening when one side refuses to listen? Since we're talking about listening, Margaret, here's a little test: I haven't exactly been silent about the things conservatives say that prove they have not listened and are utterly ignorant, in general, when it comes to homosexuality. Can you name one of these things? Note that if you have to search the archive to see what I might have said, that constitutes proof you didn't listen in the first place.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 27 March 2008 at 12:05pm GMT

For me a test of real 'listening' would be how many lesbian and gay people do you know ? How many are your friends ?

Posted by: L Roberts on Thursday, 27 March 2008 at 3:22pm GMT

...or to continue, L Roberts, how many ***gay and lesbian couples*** are your friends?

I would contend that NO ONE who spends quality *friendship* time w/ a same-sex couple, would POSSIBLY think it the "Christian" thing to do, to compel that couple to break-up, or risk their salvation (or even vocation!)

Posted by: JCF on Thursday, 27 March 2008 at 6:46pm GMT

JCF: here here!

Posted by: kieran crichton on Friday, 28 March 2008 at 1:07am GMT

The chronology doesn't mention the commisioning of a national church study group which published and disseminated a workbook and study guide in the early 90's.

It also doesn't mention repeated attempts to get human rights principles adopted by General Synod. (The bishops voted them down because the notion of human rights was unbiblical.)

It also doesn't mention the fact that +++Ted Scott was disciplined for performing a nuptial blessing at our wedding, or that the bishop who disciplined Ted, ++Terry Finlay, was in turn disciplined for the same offense 3 years later.

Posted by: Alison on Friday, 28 March 2008 at 5:49pm GMT

'...or to continue, L Roberts, how many ***gay and lesbian couples*** are your friends?"

I don't follow the logic here --- I have many Buddhist friends (because there are lot in this community) but that doesn't mean I should convert to being Buddhist in my belief nor that I should fail to use those opportunities that present themselves to tell them about the gospel because they are nice, happy and contented people -- and that is despite the fact that many are truly exceptionally nice people.

You seem to be saying that the criteria for acceptance of the idea of homosexual couples is whether they are "nice" or not. Is that really the criteria you decide your theology on?

Posted by: Margaret on Sunday, 30 March 2008 at 1:06am BST

Margaret-What does "being nice" as a test in judging relationships have anything to do with L Robert's question?

Again, changing the parameters and feigning ignorance the question's logic have nothing to do with Mr. Robert's curiosity on your personal knowledge of LGBT couples.

Stop being so controlling and answer his question.

I think the reason your perceived receipt of "hatred of anything conservative" as whined about in a more recent string is stirred up from the fact that you constantly deny straightforward and heartfelt answers to questions put forth to you. Erika Baker has repeatedly asked for clarification on an strange outburst you had at her, and you have ignored her every time she asked you to clarify this.

You take the risk of criticism every time you utter anything on this blogsite, and nothing will lead you quicker to disrespect that to dismiss people's reaction's to your pronouncements.

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Sunday, 30 March 2008 at 1:01pm BST

"I don't follow the logic here --- I have many Buddhist friends (because there are lot in this community) but that doesn't mean I should convert to being Buddhist in my belief nor that I should fail to use those opportunities that present themselves to tell them about the gospel because they are nice, happy and contented people -- and that is despite the fact that many are truly exceptionally nice people.

You seem to be saying that the criteria for acceptance of the idea of homosexual couples is whether they are "nice" or not. Is that really the criteria you decide your theology on?"

No one's suggesting that you should "convert" to homosexuality, Margaret. We ARE saying that the lack of friends of a certain kind tends to suggest that you really don't understand people of that kind, because you have no real relationship with them.

BTW, you don't REALLY mean that you are constantly proselytizing your Buddhist friends, do you? I can't imagine remaining friendly with anyone who was always trying to convince me my religion was false.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Sunday, 30 March 2008 at 2:09pm BST

Margaret: "I have many Buddhist friends (because there are lot in this community) but that doesn't mean I should convert to being Buddhist . . ."

Since the manifest parallel is that we are arguing that you should have gay friends because it would "convert" you to being gay.

If you still believe that people "convert" to being gay, that pretty much proves that you haven't been "listening."

And since you (like most "co0nservatives") like to pretend that Lambeth resolutions have absolute authority, I can only ask why you have defied the clear direction of 1998 1.10 that you listen to the experience of homosexuals?

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Monday, 31 March 2008 at 4:46am BST

"No one's suggesting that you should "convert" to homosexuality, Margaret."

But isn't it interesting that she would think that? And she isn't the only conservative to do so. This is part of a larger picture, and applies to many of the conservatives who post here. There is a very strong need for uniformity, to the point that even those who seek the acceptance of diversity are accused of trying to impose their own uniformity. How many times did NP, and others, refer to the listening process propounded by Lambeth as something that was geared to make them agree with the liberal position on homosexuality? The idea of listening to understand the differences and the effect of one's actions, of listening so as to understand those against whom one was making significant pronouncements, was alien. How many times do conservatives claim they are being forced to bless same sex unions, or to accept things they find heretical, when it is actually THEY who are trying to force their ideas on those who disagree with them? Is it because, if they do not, the mere existence of those who disagree makes them feel threatened? Note that on another thread, Margaret laments the lack of any body in Anglicanism that can force uniformity (well force scrutiny of ALL positions is the way she puts it)? The idea that there is not, and ought not be, a central legislative body in Anglicanism is anathema to them, since thither lies chaos, I guess. More broadly, why is it those who most tightly hold on to the innovations of the Reformation who seek to set up a Roman style curia, if not so that it will bring a measure of uniformity to the Anglican Church? I do not believe this comes out of some nefarious bid for power, at least not among most of the followers, but out of a deep seated fear of diversity. Perhaps it has something to do with the idea of Christian identity one finds in some Evangelical circles, as if to be Christian was an ethnic identifier.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 at 8:12pm BST

Why do you deliberately misread my posts?
Is it a cross-cultural problem with the way I use english?
At my work I am employed and promoted because of the clarity of my writing -- so why does there seem to be endless problems on this site when there isn't one anywhere else?

Posted by: Margaret on Thursday, 3 April 2008 at 4:35am BST

Margaret
You’ve been very clear in your writing.

You said you had many Buddhist friends but that this didn’t mean you should convert to Buddhism.
Translated into the context of gay friends, this can only mean “I have many gay friends but that doesn’t mean I should convert to being gay”.

This is what people have picked up - an implied belief that being gay is something one can be converted to at will.

Or did you really want to say “I have many Buddhist friends but that doesn’t mean that I like their faith and feel they are being immoral in following it?”

Because that is actually what you’re really saying about gay people. That we’re nice as far as it goes, that we ought to have civil rights, but that we’re nevertheless immoral and not saved because we’re not following the gospel.

You should read what Ford says about the purpose of the listening process. It is NOT to convert anyone to anything, but to stop people from having these bizarre misconceptions about each other.
The fact that you still appear to have them despite claiming to have gay friends speaks as clearly about you as the rest of your posts.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Thursday, 3 April 2008 at 9:10am BST

Margaret wrote: “… nor that I should fail to use those opportunities that present themselves to tell them about the gospel because they are nice, happy and contented people…”

I don’t understand this idea that Margaret should need to tell anybody she associates with which religion she adheres to. Mustn’t it be obvious to everybody. Just as Margaret knows that her “friends” are Buddhist???

Haven’t you ever been at the receiving end of Sectarian “missioning”?

Haven’t you felt in hour very bones how wrong and denigrating (for both) a situation it is??

What an affront to God, your maker???

Haven't you heard the sigh of relief from your "friend" when you didn't give in to the required tactics???

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 4 April 2008 at 5:32am BST

"I have many Buddhist friends (because there are lot in this community) but that doesn't mean I should convert to being Buddhist in my belief nor that I should fail to use those opportunities that present themselves to tell them about the gospel because they are nice, happy and contented people -- and that is despite the fact that many are truly exceptionally nice people."

How are people misreading this, Margaret? No-one, after all, is asking you to "become" gay, any more than you are asked by your Buddhist friends to become Buddhist. And since religious belief is a lifestyle choice you actually CAN make, the Buddhists would have more, if scant, hope of success. Why draw this analogy if not to imply that you think others are expecting you to "become" gay?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 4 April 2008 at 7:19pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.