A shrewd question from Christopher Landau about gay blessings. ABC doesn't like the idea of liturgies expressing a pastoral response because of what the Church may be seen to be endorsing. But doesn't liturgy always respond to human need? Otherwise what is it for?

What continues to amaze me is that the ABC never seems to be challenged by the press about why no out GLBT people are ever officially consulted about or asked to be members of the new committees and working groups he forms.

The ABC speaks of GLBT people voluntarily sacrificing themselves. Why should they, if their voices are not valued enough as laypersons, clergy, and bishop for the ABC to call upon them for service?

When will the ABC join Indaba groups with GLBTs throughout the Communion? Why doesn't he see the need for trust-building? I listened to the ABC at the end of the press conference talk about what he hopes and prays GLBTs are thinking, but why doesn't he ask GLBT people...personally?

And why are the people who have been invited to these conferences and committees never asked to sacrifice, to accept the autonomy of individual churches, to accept the burden of mutual tolerance? It seems pretty easy for a lot of these bishops to say they want moratoria for someone else (or else the ABC is seeing the numbers he wants to see). It's pretty easy for them to call upon someone else to make the sacrifice.

"The ABC speaks of GLBT people voluntarily sacrificing themselves. Why should they, if their voices are not valued enough as laypersons, clergy, and bishop for the ABC to call upon them for service?"

Because Christians are called to sacrifice themselves for others without a thought for personal reward or recognition?

“Because Christians are called to sacrifice themselves for others without a thought for personal reward or recognition?”--Ford Elms

Sorry Ford, but no. Justice trumps turning the other cheek every time.

"I hope and pray"...

What a forlorn note on which to end the press conference. I felt so sorry for the ABC because, of course, while, publicly, he may hope and pray that the rights and dignities of LGBT people are not at issue, he knows, full well, privately, that they are. How sad.

"Because Christians are called to sacrifice themselves for others without a thought for personal reward or recognition?"

And they are called to be perpetual scapegoats too?
If there is any indication that the sacrifice will actually help to allow the church to help its conservative brothers and sisters to grow into acceptance of lgbt people it makes sense. But if it's just a means of avoiding to deal with its own abuses, the church has no right to ask the victims to remain quiet.
And I don't mean Western victims, but those who are constantly risking their lives simply by existing.

Christianity asks us to give ourselves for others, it does not ask us to prop up abusive systems. That's co-dependency which has very serious psychological consequences for those being abused.

I think you're missing sheila's point, Ford.

Christians sacrifice themselves, willingly, "for the Kingdom of God."

LGBT Anglicans, conversely (perversely!), are being asked to sacrifice ourselves ("back to the closet"), only to CONFIRM THE PREJUDICES of those who find us disgusting and sinful. In so doing, the sacrifice of LGBTs is only being used to THWART God and God's Kingdom.

Heavens NO, I say! (as I believe, God willing, also will say the General Convention of TEC)

True liturgy is for the glory and worship of God!

One should always choose to sacrifice oneself for the _good_ of others. But in this case, sacrificing oneself to allow others to remain in what we believe to be error seems not to make much sense. If it did, then one might well ask why the "conservatives" should not sacrifice to allow the "liberals" to continue in error.

All this talk is meaningless unless we can get to the nub of the issue: is same-sex behavior always wrong, or can it be permitted within the context of a faithful, life-long, monogamous relationship. That is the only question that is actually causing trouble. And perhaps, ultimately, a necessary division, by those unwilling to live without the answer, and for others to disagree.

Hence my solution has always been, keep talking and studying, and follow the rules that are actually in place in each part of the world -- don't push gay bishops on Nigeria or cross boundaries into TEC. Everyone live within the rules as they actually exist, pro ante any Covenant.

What is liturgy for? At its best it should be pointing us back to God. I see no reason to expect that recognizing God who is should confirm us in our opinions, liberal or conservative.

JCF, I have heard it said that what Jesus promised was the Kingdom, and what we got was the institution called the church. It seems to me that there are plenty who would agree with the statement, but take it as a complaint against the church. Although there are plenty of things to grumble about in the church, I wonder if part of the reason we grumble is that we have misunderstood what it means to be the Kingdom of God between the Ascension and the Second Coming as badly at the disciples misunderstood what it meant for Jesus to be the Messiah.

Jon

Tobias, you angel! You have what I believe to be the only real answer to the current problem, And that is to live, and let live - as our social and cultural systems allow us. Paul would tell us to obey those (governments) who are put over us by God. However, where those governments are abusive of human rights, the Church ought, by faith in a just God, to oppose them. But where governments are seeking the good of all it's subjects, then should not the Church be backing them up?

However, in the present circumstances, it would seem that a Church that seeks to be international in jurisdiction, must tailor that jurisdiction to cover any circumstance. This, at the moment is the dilemma of the Roman Catholic Church, which seeks to rule on matters of doctrine, in all places and at all times, which can be contrary to the human rights of the persons involved'

This is why the ruling on contraception, espoused by the likes of Cardinal Kaspar, seen by some as 'de rigeur', and to others as anachronistic, is actually counter-productive to the modern world's understanding of the environment, and the need to address over-population and rates of HIV.
THe question might be asked here: "Is the Church serving the world as God wills, or is the Church seeking power which it has not been given"?
The Church exists for the sake of the world - and not the other way round. This was what Jesus said about the Sabbath. Can we not understand this?

Finally - to Robert Williams - God has said this, in respect of what pleases God: "What I require is mercy, not sacrifice",

"Justice trumps turning the other cheek every time."

The two are not mutually exclusive.

"If there is any indication that the sacrifice will actually help to allow the church to help its conservative brothers and sisters to grow into acceptance of lgbt people it makes sense."

Erika, and others, is there any indication that it won't? Don't refer to what has gone before. We have talked at each other, not to each other all these years. What if we refused to get married, but increased the pressure on conservatives to actually obey Lambeth? What if we went to places like Sudan and pressured them to acknowledge the abhorrent treatment of gay people in those countries, all the while patiently refusing to get married or be ordained? Declining to do things they believe to be wrong is one thing, but I am surprised that the automatic assumption is that if we in the West acquiesced to their demand that we cease and desist, we must therefor be silenced and crawl back to the closet. The two do not go hand in hand. What's wrong with insisting, not merely grumbling and agitating, that they face the facts, acknowledge there are gay people in their countries, and deal with the way they have colluded with abominable oppression of those gay people? It'd be very hard to do that now, it would have been easier when all this started, and we have played a role in the hardening of people's hearts around this, but it is doable.

Thanks Fr. Ron.
This is a real problem in a "world-wide church" -- which is one of the reasons I'm an Anglican -- part of a fellowship of local or provincial churches. The whole point is that cultures differ from place to place. The tensions in Anglicanism come from Lambeth, they aren't solved by it -- it was an instrument of disunity in 1998.

I'm glad to see that the position on sexuality described in the final summary this time moves us a bit back towards the position of 1988 -- that is, it articulates the division of opinion. Will that be enough to live with, and forget about the moratoria (which I don't think will happen on either side, frankly)? The "Gamaliel" position is risky, but at least the summary acknowledges it this time around.

Meanwhile, it is good to reflect that "local option" is what the Incarnation was all about -- the scandal of particularity is unavoidable, and things happen somewhere before they happen everywhere.