I've just had time to read this rather quickly, Am I mistaken, or did the ABC not mention, in either charactrization, the matter of boundary violations? See Bishop Gray of Misssissippi on that, for example.

I don't know if 'lifestyle' is the ABC's word, or if it is a word he thinks those who object to full inclusion would use. Maybe it is both. In any case, it is insulting.

A 'lifestyle' is something one may choose, and it may be as frivolous as how one decorates one's home or as consequential as deciding to be a vegetarian.

Sexual orientation and identity are NOT choices.

Implying that it is makes as much sense as asking someone when they chose 'the righthanded lifestyle.'

It is really hard to have a serious discussion when one side continues to use insulting and demeaning language about the other.

The ABC's goals are admirable, that we all get along. Yet his idea that "Holy Scripture, apostolic ministry, sacramental discipline" only matter to conservatives is deeply offensive.

It is precisely because we read a Bible in which God repeatedly and consistently calls for us to work for justice, to have regard for the widow and orphan and the poor and the stranger, that I, at least, am deeply committed to inclusion of gay folk in the full life of the Church.

Rather than seeking to "question" or "overturn . . . these things," a concern for human rights is precisely at the heart of these things.

The idea that there is a version of the Christian faith in which God is not calling us to participate in God's reconciling work, that following Jesus is not about working for the inclusion of all God's people in the Church is deeply disturbing.

To the innovator, can we say, ‘Don’t isolate yourself; don’t create facts on the ground that make the invitation to debate ring a bit hollow’? Can we say to the traditionalist, ‘Don’t invest everything in a church of pure and likeminded souls; try to understand the pastoral and human and theological issues that are urgent for those you are opposing, even if you think them deeply wrong’?"

And what do we say to lgbt people?
Oh, I forget - we talk about them, not to them.

"The ABC's goals are admirable, that we all get along. Yet his idea that "Holy Scripture, apostolic ministry, sacramental discipline" only matter to conservatives is deeply offensive."

Precisely. On a second reading, his characteruzation of the liberal side is a caricature. It IS in Jesus' reminder of our responsibility for 'the least of these' that we find a charter to reach out and welcome and incorporate the marginalized, including glbt people. As the actor Andy Griffen said in a shtick [sp?] he did early in his career, "It's in The Book!"

I really resent, and I expect many on the other side also resent, the arrogance of the ABC's assuming he can speak in others' voices.

He does not speak in my voice; he does not speak for me. He has had ample opportunity to listen to Canada and TEC, and he has taken very little advantage of the opportunity. He was in reach of Episcopal churches of all kinds in the DC area while he was swanning away with Dostoevsky and the Jesuits. But then, he might have been confused by the facts. Much more fun to make them up.

Erika said,

"And what do we say to lgbt people?
Oh, I forget - we talk about them, not to them."

Davis Maciyalla has been on campus at the Lambeth conference for the past ten days, but judging from all the blogs and news reports, apart from a quick chat with Ruth Gledhill in Sainsburies, has any journalist or Bishop actually spoken TO Davis, rather than about him?

Simon

"Hello Adam! Hi Steve! How lovely to see you both in church this morning! Congratulations on your civil parnership. I hope you're settling down nicely in your new home. I do hope you'll stay for coffee after the service. There are a couple of issues I need to discuss with you to make sure that you know that our love and welcome is real. Don't worry! I'm not going to ask you what you do in the privacy of your own home! I won't go into it now, but I need to point out to you both that if you are seeking a blessing from this church, I'm afraid it won't be possible until all Anglicans in the world say you can. You see, our bishops say this is the doctrine of the church, and it would be inconvenient for the Church if it got into the press. Not only that, some of the yobs in the neighbourhood might throw a brick through the window if they think we are a gay church. I hope that's clear. Now I'll show you to your pew."

Wow. These comments certainly read like people more determined to root out and expose what's clearly wrong in what's offered than to enter into anything that might be helpful or right or - dare I say it? - challenging. I wonder if the traditionalist websites are being equally scathing over Rowan's inability to properly characterise/ comprehend/ empathise with their truths? If they are - he's perhaps getting it about right.

I am disappointed that Archbishop Rowan should have put things so bluntly. I had though he had a little finesse. However, If he sees the two sides of this argument as Conservative/Goodies versus Liberal/Baddies, then he is really no different from his predecessor, who is still rumbling somewhere in the background of this debate.

Could it be that Rochester and Winchester have more influence than the broader Church has given them? One appreciates the yearning for Unity - but not at the expense of the Gospel. Perhaps, then, there must be a New Reformation, on the grounds of: 'What we have always Thought/Done' as opposed to 'What the Holy Spirit is calling us to Think/Do' The Roman Catholics are moving back to the Past, must we Anglicans do the same?
God help us all

"...speaking from the centre requires habits and practices and disciplines..."

Habits, practices and disciplines are founded upon presumptions and rituals from the past. They are about continuing what already exists.

Habits sometimes need to be broken, disciplines sometimes need to be re-examined, principles sometimes need to be scrutinised and rituals can sometimes become downright hypocritical.

Recall Jesus' rebukes and the Pharisees obsessions with rituals and "appropriate" and timely conduct and associations e.g. with worrying about how to clean the outise of a cup.

Erika's posting was too conciliatory.
"And what do we say to lgbt people?
Oh, I forget - we talk about them, not to them."

Actually, they do their best to not even talk about them, except perhaps in disparaging dismissive terms of how they expunged some evil infidels.

Some souls aren't worried about accusations, they just don't like receiving what they have been meting out for millenia.

After all, Cheva is apparently still unforgiven and to blame for all things that went wrong, Jesus never intended gentleness to the Daughter of Zion or any other female. The cloud of the divine presence is simply some metaphysical phenomenom and not associated with the Shekina with her own consciousness, opinions and gifts. The God of the Old Testament was cruel, vindictive, vengeful, incapable of loving and is to blame for all this world's suffering.

Enter the first loving manifestation of God: Jesus the complete and perfect fulfillment of scriptures and now all of God. Well, since Jesus is the complete fulfillment of all of God, Jesus won't mind if the superceded withhold their talents. After all, who are we to interfere with Jesus global genocide plans? It would be an act of rebellion to interfere with Jesus' annointed priests...

I agree with Cynthia that "lifestyle" is not a well chosen word. However, whilst it's mistaken, I don't think it's best charitably interpreted as demeaning.

I also don't think that just because Scripture, apostolic ministry and sacramental discipline were mentioned in the "traditionalist" part of the address, that this was meant to imply that "liberals" or those who fall into the "it's more complicated bracket" do not consider those elements of tradition as fundamental to their existence also. He could equally have mentioned them in the second section of the address.

I don't think the ABC does really try to speak with other voices. This is made clear when he says: "I want to imagine what people on different sides of our most painful current debate hope others have heard or are beginning to hear in our time together." To "imagine" or wonder is to attempt to reflect upon the "hearing" that has taken place so far.

I imagine a conversation with Adam and Steve might go more along these lines; "if you were to seek a blessing, we would not be able to grant it at present. To do so, might be to endanger the lives of our fellow Christians in Africa. You'll both remember, having been together for many years, the threats of violence that hang over the heads of many homosexuals in this country... But we'll walk with you, offer your life in our prayers, and ask you to hold us in yours. You are welcome at the Eucharist, although we acknowledge that attendance at church might often be painful for you. We would also be delighted to baptise your children..."

And finally, I'm not sure if the ABCs personal view is so blunt. I doubt it. Most people's views aren't so blunt because there is no monolithic entity known as "liberal" or "conservative". However, the "gay question" (as though there is only one question!) is what the conference appears to hang upon. I fear that this is because many askers of that question (including many bishops) do not have the theological training to ask the questions about sexuality in a manner that does not lead to such matters looking so polarised.

I thought some of Oliver O'Donovan's suggestions looked interesting (and I'm neither an evangelical, nor a liberal) because of the way they looked at the question from a conservative point of view which still allowed room for questions. It would be very useful to allow some of the generous theologians (both conservative, liberal, and other), those willing to work out how we walk on together, to have some sort of platform.

TWP - Thank you for that thoughtful post.

One of the many problems with the ABC's address is that he won't permit that conversation with "Adam and Steve": they and their witness are locked out of Lambeth and all the committees he appoints.

TWP,

I am glad to hear some reason (for "thinking Anglicans") in response to the address by the ABC.

In particular it is important to highlight his statement: "I want to imagine what people on different sides of our most painful current debate hope others have heard or are beginning to hear in our time together."

|Ben W

Cynthia,

The question is can there still be real conversation? Just to follow this thread, the response is largely "my way or the highway."

Did you not hear the key point from the ABC? "I want to imagine what people on different sides of our most painful current debate hope others have heard or are beginning to hear in our time together." He seeks to do what I miss here, to hear what the other person is actually saying or concerned about. He may well not succeed completely.

To think a little further about your statement: "A 'lifestyle' is something one may choose, and it may be as frivolous as how one decorates one's home or as consequential as deciding to be a vegetarian. Sexual orientation and identity are NOT choices." There are probably beter ways to say this. But choice is basic to who we are as humans - identity - so I think you have trivialized this. Do you mean to say our sexuality is like the colour of one's eyes? It seems like you forget that we are all sexual beings and what we are and do with sexuality has not been like that for me. Today in the culture we get everything from heterosexuality to multisexuality and those who claim to be polyamorous simply "promiscuous"). For many of them "this is just the way I am," the end is chaos. Sexual identity then is not a "mere matter of choice," but to say it is not key is to trivialize it.

|Ben W

TWP

Yes, Adam and Steve, blessing you would mean some Muslims in Africa might burn down a church, and it would be your fault. Just like women being raped because they dress in mini skirts is their own fault.
If you’re just quiet for long enough we’ll eventually get round to persuading the Muslims that attacking African Christians for something that happens in a village church in England is wrong, although we haven’t actually started any conversation about that with them yet, and we wont for a while, because it might provoke them.

And if you wait even longer... or maybe in the second and third generation, we might even start talking to our own African Christian brothers who have not been killed by Muslims, that it would be a good idea to treat their own homosexual population with respect.

Unlike you, these homosexuals are people who live in constant fear and danger from their Christian brothers, even if we don’t bless your relationship in an English village church. But we’re not going to do much about them right now either because of those Muslims we mentioned earlier. We just keep our heads down a little, close our eyes and hope the problem will just go away.
Would you like to go on the coffee rota?

"I imagine a conversation with Adam and Steve might go more along these lines; "if you were to seek a blessing, we would not be able to grant it at present. To do so, might be to endanger the lives of our fellow Christians in Africa."

Not only would I NOT join such a church, I would call my local public health officials, and ask them to keep an eye on this location: there is a person(s) with evidently untreated mental illness, suffering from significant delusions.

Yes, that's right, DELUSIONS: there's no other word for it, to equate a "granted liturgy of blessing" in the UK, with "endanger the lives of our fellow Christians in Africa."

Healing Christ, grant mental clarity! Bring us More Light! More Light!

Ben:

Let me ask you this: Do you recall at some point in your youth "choosing" to be heterosexual? No? Then why do you presume that homosexuals have made a choice?

"Do you mean to say our sexuality is like the colour of one's eyes? It seems like you forget that we are all sexual beings and what we are and do with sexuality has not been like that for me. Today in the culture we get everything from heterosexuality to multisexuality and those who claim to be polyamorous simply "promiscuous"). For many of them "this is just the way I am," the end is chaos. Sexual identity then is not a "mere matter of choice," but to say it is not key is to trivialize it."

Let me see if I can make myself clearer. I do not believe that our sexual identity is a matter of choice, like decorating our homes, etc., that is, it's not a 'lifestyle.'

I believe that your example, eye color, is not appropriate, as, I think I'm right in saying this, the genetic mechanics of who gets blue eyes and who gets brown is very well known.

I believe - and everything scientific I have read confirms this - that sexual identity is more like handedness. There is no single gay gene, nor is there a single handedness gene, but in human beings [and other animals] sexual identity is fixed very early indeed, and is probably a coming together of genes and hormones in utero. I've sen reserach that suggests that the incidnece of handedness is similarly complex.

In America, they used to try an force lefthanded children to use their right hands. This did not result in righthanded adults, but adults who wrote badly with their right hands.

You are correct in saying what we choose is important.

You can choose to train so that your powerful left arm and hand allow you to be an excellent pitcher in American baseball - or you can use then to beat people up and rob them.

You can choose to express your sexuality in a loving lifelong relationship. Or you can be promiscuous. It's choice, and it's a choice for heterosexuals too. It is, after all, not gays who have a 50% divorce rate in the States.

Hope this is clearer, and I should say also, that as a soon-to-be retired English professor, I simply loathe 'lifestyle' as an empty word, devoid of useful meaning in any context. I have seen it used to designate everything from sexual practice to collecting stamps to using illegal drugs.

"I want to imagine what people on different sides of our most painful current debate hope others have heard or are beginning to hear in our time together."

Ben, what I don't think you grasp is that many conservatives manifestly have not listened, despite repeated urging from Lambeth conference for the past 30 years that they do so. Their statements show a profound ignorance of homosexuality. They seek "information" that is largely propaganda to support their exclusion of gay people. I am not merely talking about individual conservative lay people on this site, based on whom I have often made wild, unjust generalizations about conservatives and Evangelicals. I am talking about bishops, Ben. The kinds of things they say about gay people make it quite clear that, while they can quote seven passages of Scripture, they really don't know anything at all about the people they claim those passages of Scripture refer to. So where's the "listening"? TEC is doing what it is doing because, after 30 years of compliance with Lambeth, they couldn't justify treating us like pariahs any more. When faced with someone's humanity, it is hard to turn around and treat them as less than human. What's more, why should I now have any faith whatsoever that these same people, who have been smug in their ignorance, who have vilified me and those who do not want to see me cast out of the Church, who, whether intentionally or for want of knowledge (which knowledge, BTW, it was their duty to gain before making their statements) have spread misinformation and gross distortions about people like me, why should I have the least faith that these people will suddenly turn around, especially in the high emotion that is current in Anglican circles, and actually listen and try to understand the people they have treated as some sort of abominable "other" for the past 30 years? I would like to listen, but how do I listen to someone who tells me that I am something I am not just because he couldn't be bothered to try to get beyond his prejudices, indeed, denies even having any?

Asserting that gay-friendly churches on one side of the world are causing "literal physical risk to Christians" on the other is a serious charge, but what evidence is there for it? As far as I can tell, there is no mention of this in the Windsor Report or any of the other documents of the last five years. So why has this been adduced at this late stage, on the eve of 'gay day'?

Where is it substantiated that African Christians have been attacked, or threatened with attack, because their assailants were sufficiently well-versed in Anglican affairs to be able to make the connection between TEC and the local Anglican church, then set out with the sole aim of targetting Christians because of a gay bishop and not because of a more general connection between Christianity and the West?

NO, no ! Open your ears man ! He has got it completey wrong. We gays won't be condescended to any longer. So Pete -- YOU choose. WE have had to.

This about poeple's live not your doctrines and notions. Lives ...

'Wow. These comments certainly read like people more determined to root out and expose what's clearly wrong in what's offered than to enter into anything that might be helpful or right or - dare I say it? - challenging. I wonder if the traditionalist websites are being equally scathing over Rowan's inability to properly characterise/ comprehend/ empathise with their truths? If they are - he's perhaps getting it about right.'

Posted by: pete hobson on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 at 11:51pm

'..imagine a conversation with Adam and Steve might go more along these lines; "if you were to seek a blessing, we would not be able to grant it at present. To do so, might be to endanger the lives of our fellow Christians in Africa. You'll both remember, having been together for many years, the threats of violence that hang over the heads of many homosexuals in this country... But we'll walk with you, offer your life in our prayers, and ask you to hold us in yours. You are welcome at the Eucharist, although we acknowledge that attendance at church might often be painful for you. We would also be delighted to baptise your children..." '

TWR

Steve and Adam, "F- it !" *

*Forget it !

Cynthia,

I can agree when you say, "I simply loathe 'lifestyle' as an empty word, devoid of useful meaning in any context." I think it was probably used with more weight by RW.

On the nature of sexual identity and with identity as a whole the setting in which we grow up is important. But sexual identity and identity as a whole is also formed in the choices we make. In other words my point is, sexual identity is not inevitable as eye colour. It was not for me, and I also know a young man who went into the gay community around twenty and then ten years later came to the realization what I want is to be married and have a family (his friends of course repeated the line ... "gay always gay"). He now has a wife and children and not because he was led to it by Christian influence (he has not made any Christian connection). Something similar also occurred with a woman I know about that had lived with another woman for some years.

So it is complex, but just repeating the formula "it is not a choice" does not help.

Ben W

I want to stay with these imaginary conversations, and work through some of the issues arising.

Erika,

You said: "Yes, Adam and Steve, blessing you would mean some Muslims in Africa might burn down a church, and it would be your fault."

The way I understand what it means to be bodily bound up in another person and in the Body of Christ entails a connectedness that it is difficult for me as a "western individual" to comprehend. Of course blessing a gay couple would not directly lead to church arson, but a church policy in which homosexuals are blessed could well lead to endangering African Christians (homosexual or otherwise). I'm already concerned by some of the tightening in law against homosexuals that some African countries appear to have enacted since this debate began.

You also said:
"we’re not going to do much about them right now either because of those Muslims we mentioned earlier. We just keep our heads down a little, close our eyes and hope the problem will just go away."

It seems to me that addressing such difficult and fraught questions at a Lambeth conference is to make all parties vulnerable, and is a long way from sticking heads in sand.

TWF, you said:
"Yes, that's right, DELUSIONS: there's no other word for it, to equate a "granted liturgy of blessing" in the UK, with "endanger the lives of our fellow Christians in Africa.""

I hope I'm not being delusional. Obviously, I'm not saying that one blessing in England leads directly to violence the other side of the globe. But it is a cause for concern that a policy of blessing might lead to civil unrest.

Hugh, I appreciate the question about evidence for attacks on Christians because of "gay bishops" as opposed to general opposition of Christians. There is no straightforward answer here. I was relying on ABC's better knowledge from many conversations, but I'd agree that there is huge potential for confusion over "the west" (and colonial or military policy), "Christianity" and "homosexuality" (as concepts).

I consider that the listening process has been too short. There is more to be said, and the greatest question that hangs over our heads is; "can we still walk together?" Are there others that want to live in a church that wrestles openly with these questions, and yet holds a pilgrim people whose journey contains unsettled disagreements?

Pat,

|To your question: "Let me ask you this: Do you recall at some point in your youth "choosing" to be heterosexual? No? Then why do you presume that homosexuals have made a choice?"

|Actually,yes - in some small ways/choices in my setting and in decisive ways at a few points (there were some who were open around open to various forms of sexuality). Now what about your presumptions?

Ben W

"Aagh, Wid the God the gift te gie 'us; to see oorsels as others see us" (approximately)
I guess each side of the many arguments here would do well to take heed to the words of Robbie Burns (above).

We cannot know what is troubling the other person who is gay, trans-gender or hetero - unless we can walk in his/her footsteps. Likewise, unless one has been homosexual from as far back as they can remember, with absolutely no inclination to 'get into bed' with someone of another gender, it might be difficult to even remotely imagine what 'being gay' or 'tran-gendered' must really be like. It is certainly not a matter of choice.

The hetero-sexual myth is that if one perceives themselves to be attracted to the same sex, one ought only to contemplate the social stigma and inconvenience associated with that to be able to 'turn around'.

Another myth is that homosexuality is a chosen life-style. If it were indeed a life-style which one could choose, with all the aggravation this would cause, who would choose to be gay?

Bearing all this in mind, can the homosexual orientation be changed - either clinically or spiritually? Certainly not clinically, unless hormones are introduced, which could be seen as a chemical manipulation of one's natural God-given sexual orientation. Would this be ethical? Spiritually? I've yet to be convinced of one truly homosexual person who has actually been changed into a hetero-sexual person by prayer.

And how does all this relate to the Church's attitude towards people who are different -sexually? Well, for a start, we could begin by not criticising them for the supposed 'life-style' some of them affect to practise.

'Gay Parades' are not the chosen 'life-style' of most gay or trans-sexual people. Participants in these exotic exhibitions are not usually the sort of people (the majority) who live out their lives in fear and dread of being exposed for what they are - not through any fault of their own, but because they happen to be made that way.

Ben W's defence of his bady chosen word "choice", for comples matters we don't grasp (and maybe never will), is paralelled in Ford's critique of the same on the tread above ;=)

"I have chosen"... (What did Disraeli say sarcastically about a self-made man who a d o r e s his maker?)

"Now what about your presumptions?"

No presumptions, just a confirmation of what I've thought long ago, that those who are most vocally against homosexuality because they believe it to be a vile choice, are usually at least to some degree bisexual.
Perfectly natural, you know.
And either choice would have been morally ok, as long as it included love and faithfulness.

TWP
"It seems to me that addressing such difficult and fraught questions at a Lambeth conference is to make all parties vulnerable, and is a long way from sticking heads in sand."

But is there any evidence at all that any conservative person has ever addressed this in the slightest?

Is there an official dialogue with the African churches about their treatment of homosexuals in the same way there clearly is official communication about the American way?

Where are all these people who openly and lovingly point out to Akinola that his attempt at criminalsing supporters of gay people was wrong?
And let's not forget that it was the Nigerian Muslims who opposed this bill!
So much for Christians having to be harsh on homosexuality to appease their Muslim neighbours.

It all sounds nice, TWP, but it simply doesn't fit the facts.

Erika,

I don't know about whether a conservative person (are we speaking about a bishop here or others?) has addressed this issue whilst at the conference. I'm not sure how anybody can fail to address it, but the question of engagement is quite key. To engage is to do more than repeat one's own rhetorical line on a repeated basis. Somebody else will have to answer the question as to address and engagement because I don't know the conversations that have gone on at Lambeth. It seems charitable to presume that the people who came to Lambeth have come prepared to engage with the questions it raises.

"Is there an official dialogue with the African churches about their treatment of homosexuals in the same way there clearly is official communication about the American way?"

What is the American way? Not sure I know what you mean here. I don't know whether there's official dialogue re. treatment of homosexuals in general in Africa (maybe "the African churches" is too large a group, since to say "the European churches" is too large a generalisation).

"It all sounds nice, TWP, but it simply doesn't fit the facts."

Maybe I'm failing to listen and engage responsibly, but for me the difficulty is engagement with the "conservative" issues and struggles, rather than the "liberal" ones (massive generalisation). I appreciate the ABC's efforts to try and imagine conversations and lives of others, just in order to walk in the shoes of people with whom we don't agree.

I'm passioantely in favour of continuing to walk together, to journey together and to seek God together. It is a matter of some considerable sadness that two people whose lives are offered in service of the church might not receiving a blessing for that service offered. But in like manner, it pains me to think that we might choose to walk apart from our sister churches because they could not agree with us on this matter. And there isn't a "best option", but there might be compromises.

This thread refers to an assertion that "...blessing you would mean some Muslims in Africa might burn down a church..."

There are some with "scriptural" authority that think that blessing, acknowledging or countenancing some souls would mean some camps would burn down a church/tear apart a communion.

We can't be nice to women, because some misogynists would tear apart a "feminine" church. We can't be nice to Jews, because anti-semitics would attack us. We can't be nice to the poor of the "third" world, because our corporate sponsors would deprive us. We can't be nice to Muslims, because some "pure" Christian sponsors would reject us. We can't acknowledge feminine/unseen forces because we could no longer "unique" scriptural authority. We can't acknowledge God in its multiplicity because that would offend some Muslim compatriots. We can't acknowledge God outside of Abrahamic religions because we'd have to be nice to Hindus and Buddhists. We can't acknowledge righteousness, because we'd have to be nice to secularists and humanists.

We can't show humility because that would make us accountible for our conduct. We can't acknowledge God's love and graciousness, because we'd then have to apologise for all the souls we've unfairly abused, shunned and insulted for millenia...

Erika:

"...those who are most vocally against homosexuality because they believe it to be a vile choice, are usually at least to some degree bisexual."

Thank you. Exactly what I was going to say following Ben's response.

Pat,

I will refer you to the statement from TWP just above: "To engage is to do more than repeat one's own rhetorical line on a repeated basis."

Your response does not engage what I said, just proceeds on old assumptions. If that is all you expect and want from this conversation so be it, but then do not expect me to be part of it.

Ben W

TWP
"And there isn't a "best option", but there might be compromises"

There might be.
Can you imagine one that doesn't include treating lgbt people as secondary church members?

Your Adam and Steve image at least allowed Adam and Steve to have their childen baptised in a church (thanks!), but apart from that found only very sweet words to deny them what every straight couple takes for granted.
And not on theological grounds, which at least has some integrity, but simply to achieve a compromise.

Maybe when the compromisers have to sacrifice something they themselves hold dear and don't merely determine that one group of the population must continue to be the generally accepted sacrifice I might have more sympathy for your position.

I think that, as I remarked above, there is no direct causal connection between one blessing and anybody burning anything. I do, however, consider (on the strength of the ABC's address) that an attitude of blessing of homosexual relationships by the western church might put some Christians in Africa in danger of violence (I'm not so interested in Muslims so much as some traditional African cultural taboos).

There is a difference between "being nice to women," and promoting women's places within the ministerial hierarchy. In the same way, there's a difference between actively blessing homosexual relationships, and being friends with people in the church who happen to be gifted with same sex partners. I don't see any reason not to bless certain same sex partnerships, but we're not a monolithic church and I'd hate to consider that continuing with such blessings would cut us off from the brothers and sisters with whom we disagree. I am certainly not suggesting that one offer charity, Eucharistic hospitality, friendship, companionship etc. to homosexuals in any different way than they're offered to heterosexuals.

I think that to show humility is not necessarily to walk single handedly down the path that we think happens to be correct, irrespective of our fellow Christians. Doesn't humility entail considering the possibility that any one of us could be wrong?

Erika,

Thanks for keeping the conversation going.

"Can you imagine... ?"

Well, other people that are offered blessings would traditionally have been married once and subsequently divorced. To offer blessing to previously married straight couples is to hold the covenant of marriage as indissoluble. And yet, the blessing is an offering of a new start of sorts. One does not treat previously married people as second class citizens, but instead acknowledges that something different is happening.

Thus to deny same sex partners a blessing is not, necessarily, to treat LGBT people as second class citizens. There are no second class citizens in the Kingdom of God. Many churches deny previously married people weddings. However, perhaps that is unsatisfactory because some previously married people are offered a blessing rather than nothing...

Yet part of the issue is as follows... to offer a blessing to gay relationships at present is not to offer genuine blessing. Saying to Adam and Steve, "we'll bless your relationship, but don't go and visit the neighbouring parish because they won't recognise the blessing" is to turn something that the church might consider covenantal into something parochial.

"Your Adam and Steve image... takes for granted."

There are critiques of the marital institution by queer theorists, such that I'm not convinced that the "marriage model" is one that many LGBT people would want to entirely adopt. Perhaps an alternative based around some sort of blessing model might one day be a possibility. Maybe Adam and Steve are critical of the blessing idea. But... I'm not sure that most Christians are at a stage where they might contemplate blessings. Some Christians have only met and engaged with LGBT people very recently. Also, not "every straight couple" can take marriage/blessing for granted, especially if one has been previously married.

"And not on theological grounds... to achieve a compromise."

Theological grounds are compromises. Theology is the result of years of discussion, and emerges from Christians wrestling together. I'm not suggesting compromise for its own sake, but for the retention of a unity that is a theological ground.

"Maybe when the compromisers... I might have more sympathy..."

Yes, I agree here. But also there's a need to take seriously that some have made compromises to be present. The ABoC implied that some people will be seen as defectors for coming to Lambeth in the first place. That needs to be recognised too.

TWP
I am still not sure I fully agree with your analysis.
The point is not whether same sex relationships are the same or different from marriages, or whether a relationship blessing is already a secondary tier acknowledgement of a relationship after the failure of a marriage. And I don’t think it matters whether you are convinced that a marriage model is what many lgbt people would want to adopt. We have started this conversation on the basis that there IS a couple seeking a blessing.

And whether a blessing is recognised in a neighbouring parish or not is also unimportant. Important is that this couple can pledge their lives to each other in the presence of their friends and family, and in the presence of God, and that they can ask for God’s blessing on their promise to live together faithfully for the rest of their lives. For committed Christians to be told that God has to be kept out of it is the most hurtful thing imaginable, because of what God means to them. The neighbouring parish doesn’t feature at all, this is not about bestowing any external legitimacy after all.

You say that “theology is compromise”, and I must say that I do not understand that phrase at all. Theology is trying to discover as much about God as possible. Living it may be compromise, but that should not excuse us from trying.

My real difficulty with your comment is that “compromise” is something two parties do in order to achieve a more complete whole than would otherwise be achieved.
A marriage in which only one partner’s faults are being pointed out is not an even marriage. A marriage in which only one partner is being asked to modify his behaviour for the good of the other is, ultimately, doomed to bitterness or failure.
Healing and true unity can only arise if both partners are equally committed to the process. And in the contrived unity that is the current Anglican Communion I genuinely do not see where the conservatives are compromising anything at all......(1/2)

(2/2)
Nor, more importantly, do I see where they are being asked to compromise. I accept that coming home from Lambeth without having gained anti-gay ground may be difficult for some bishops. I’m not sure it’s the same scale of difficulty that has been imposed on Gene Robinson for the last years. Are we comparing like with like here?

So as a priest or bishop who believes in blessing same sex relationships and who wants to retain his integrity while refusing actual blessings, at the very least I would say to Adam and Steve:
“I’m so sorry Adam and Steve. I know that are still being made scapegoats, and it does hurt me that I have to be party to this. The only reason I can be party to this, and the only reason I can ask you to wait is because I firmly believe that this will only be a temporary wait, and because I personally will do everything in my power to help end this status. From now on I will commit myself to working towards ending your status as pariahs in conservative circles. I will do my best to engage in the public discussion. My name will be plainly visible wherever this discussion takes place. I will speak clearly and audibly to my African brothers when they try to criminalise homosexuals even more and when they try to criminalise those who associate with homosexuals. “Homosexuals are loved by God and in need of our pastoral support” will not be a cosy sentence said and soon forgotten, but will be something I will campaign for with all of my power, here and in Africa.
Our African brothers have not even begun to listen to you, they are still vilifying lgbt people in their own countries while claiming that special protection is needed for their straight congregations. If I have to ask you to be patient with me now, I will do everything in my power to change this.”

Then, and only then, could I accept that a sympathetic priest might be able to withhold a blessing while retaining his integrity, and only then could Adam and Steve see they are not being made a scapegoat but that they have a good reason to accept their priest’s request and support him.

Erika,

I am unconvinced that blessings should simply take place without some underlying theological notion as to what the church is affirming when they occur. So whilst I appreciate that talk of marriage/blessings is something of a detour, it's a conversation that needs to take place in the context of speech about such blessings. OTOH, there are many Christian LGBT people who seek blessings. Assuming for A & S that that is the case, my next few questions would seek to explore the content of what they're hoping blessing might represent.

I would strongly disagree that it does not matter if a neighbouring parish didn't recommend a blessing. The way I envisage what it means to be a catholic body of Christ means that one's neighbours actions are vital. Dave Walker commented a few days ago: "Nonetheless, if I ever thought this issue could be “adiaphora” (something a local church can determine without needing to heed others) I no longer do." To pledge one's life before God is to pledge one's life before the holy, catholic and apostolic church too.

I don't see that Christians are being told that God has to be "kept out of it". Currently, many bishops have asked for same sex blessings to stop. I would argue that there is still an ecclesial space for the argument to continue. For the non-accepting parish, to be ignored by the neighbouring parish might be equally hurtful. A lot of people across the whole communion are hurting at the moment, and “who’s hurting most?” can become an unintentional weapon.

A blessing, as a liturgical and thus political gesture seems to be a gesture that is presuming some level of external legitimacy. I don’t know whether my notion of "blessing" and yours are different.

My description of theology as compromise is an attempt to make sense of preceding church councils. I doubt a conciliar decision has even been conciliar until it has been thoroughly disputed. I'd probably argue that theology is true worship of God, and consequent speech of that truth. That speech works itself out liturgically, and thus the content for our liturgy concerning blessings is key. I agree with your description of compromise as something two parties do to achieve a more complete whole. I'd agree that it has not yet been faithfully accomplished. (1 of 2)

I don’t want to get into a "for whom is X action more difficult?" discussion. Gene Robinson and many of the constituent Christians of various Global South countries have different burdens to bear, but burdens can‘t be compared like for like.

My favourite part of your post was your conversation with Adam and Steve. I was hoping that my conversation might be viewed as generous and empathetic, but your response is much better. The line about scapegoats sounds wonderfully like James Alison in the best way possible. Your words about speaking against African bros/sisters when they speak of criminalisation are fitting. I suppose my only word of hesitation is surrounding the degree of commitment to engage in public discussion. I'm not sure every priest/bishop is in a position to be able to make that statement. I think with a little tweaking, I could probably manage a half way house between your conversation and mine.

(2 of 2)

TWP

Thank you for your reply!
Not being a theologian I'm beginning to be out of my depth. What a blessing might mean to the church and what it might mean to those getting married/civil partnered is something I see at a very basic level.

I know that, theologically speaking, the church never "marries" people, in a marriage service it simply confirms a relationship that already exists.

Now, as to what kind of relationship that is, I get my theology from Tobias Haller (http://jintoku.blogspot.com/ The Sex Articles), but I accept his writings because they confirm my own feelings, not for any deep educated theological reason, although he is deeply theological. If you haven’t read him yet, I would strongly suggest you do. It would be really helpful if someone could tell me where he might be wrong. So far, no-one has successfully dismantled his thoughts or even dented them.

What really informs my thinking is my personal experience. I was married in a church, although I wasn't a Christian at the time. We didn't know whether we wanted children or not, but we knew that it didn't matter. The church marries people who are infertile and it marries post menopausal people. So clearly, procreation is not what makes a marriage a marriage.

It was a good marriage but it certainly wasn't a Christian marriage.

(1/2)

(2/2)

I now find myself in a same sex relationship, in which for both of us God is the absolute centre of our lives. Our faith informs everything we do, and it certainly is a major part of our relationship. We are deeply involved in our local church where we have the full loving support of our priest and our congregation. Only with all of their support were we able to cope with looking after my two daughters together when my oldest one was diagnosed with leukaemia. We have done more intense parenting together than the girls' father and I ever did. We have had more people in the church supporting us than outside it. We always have God at the centre of our lives. Without each other, we would not have got through the difficult 2 1/2 years of my daughter's illness, and we feel that our love is the biggest gift God has ever given to us.

I would like you to tell me what you would say to me if I came and asked for a blessing. Why was my not Christian Adam and Eve marriage acceptable, whereas my completely God focused, church supported, child rearing and committed, faithful and stable Eve and Yvette relationship is questionable?

Issues like what the neighbouring parish does are important but they are also secondary. They are something to be worked out once you have arrived at your basic theology of either accepting or rejecting the validity of same sex blessings. Compromise may indeed have to play a part in it. On the other hand, I am not sure why it should. There are many things neighbouring churches do differently, yet it does not seem to affect our togetherness as churches. The theological differences between anglo-catholics and evangelicals are almost too deep to bridge, yet bridge them we do. It’s only because same sex relationships are the current hot button issue that we feel unable to live side by side with different practices. If we can agree not to split over women priests (within our own church) and lay presidency (within the Anglican Communion), we should be able to agree not to split over same sex blessings.

I’m away now for 2 weeks but I shall check this thread again when I come back to see