Comments: InclusiveChurch and others respond

But its clear that the Anglican Church is not that sort of church.

So why are you all wasting your time kidding yourselves?

Get out, start something new, and leave institutional homophobia behind for good. I did.

Posted by Merseymike at Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 12:05am GMT

Inclusive Church (et al) seems less angry than I am.

I can't help but notice, that the "Communique" resembles B033: rammed through at the last minute, just when it seemed like the gathering would end on an upnote (though of course, the Communique's provisions are WORSE than B033's)

As I asked on the first Communique thread below: just HOW, does TEC say "Thanks but no thanks" {*cough*Hell No!*cough*} to this? ++KJS? Executive Council? (Emergency?) meeting of the HofB?

As far as *I'm* concerned, this is STILL the purview of GC, and that's not meeting again till '09 (nevermind this ridiculous *artificial* 9/30/07 deadline)

"Jaw-jaw is better than war-war", as Churchill famously said. We'll see how that works, when TEC, God-willing, arrives for Lambeth WITHOUT kowtowing to these *damnable* demands...

Lord have mercy!

Posted by JCF at Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 1:16am GMT

Yep, Merseymike, I've hung on for long enough. I'm joining you on the outside.

Good luck to those who stay,

Posted by matthew hunt at Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 2:41am GMT

I am deeply humbled by the faith of those who have responded above. In the midst of gret vilification by some they have continued in the way of Jesus by loving their enemies and blessing those who persecute them, and keeping the larger picture of the reconciliation of all people in Christ at the center.

I personally find myself frustrated by the failure of many in our communion to even listen. I am encouraged though that we on the progressive end of the Episcopal Church might find a way to work with like minded people to share the gifts of GLBT Christians with others who have not expereinced them. There is no doubt we must be more intentional and assertive than we have been in the past.

It will be interesting to see if that kind of listening will happen at Lambeth. Until then I am grateful for those willing to sacrifice for the hope that we might actually find a way forward as a communion together.

Posted by Thomas at Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 3:36am GMT

JCF, I think the point is that TEC cannot say 'thanks but no thanks' without having to actually stand up and say it. In the past TEC has been known to be a bit unclear from time to time which has allosed it (her/him?) to give verbal assent with 'its' fingers crossed behind its back. One might site the various unanimous primatial statements signed by ++Griswold.

This communique does not allow that, whether because other primates have caught on to this game, or because the new ++ is simply someone given to clearer speach. I think that that is a good quality in her, and a good quality in this statement.

Posted by James Crocker at Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 9:08am GMT

I am unclear how this press release can claim to represent all "LGBT Anglicans" as if they are monolithic and entirely uniform group who all think and want the same things in this situation! There are plenty of Anglicans who experience same-sex attraction who do accept Lambeth 1.10 and who are fully included in the church because they do not express their attractions in sexual activity!

Posted by Sean Doherty at Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 9:54am GMT

For God's sake: I am a gay Anglican, I am partnered, I have no interest in getting married, blessed, or anything else. I do not feel in the least bit persecuted by the fact the Church won't marry me, in fact, I wonder if maybe sacramental Church marriage might only be meant for straight people, like motherhood is only for women. But I do NOT "experience same sex attraction"! This is a profoundly insulting display of ignorance. I am gay. I am not diseased, I am not under attack by the Evil One, I am not some poor afflicted soul who needs your, or anyone's, pity because I do not "experience opposite sex attraction". My life is not an experience, it is my life. If you cannot even admit that what I am is what I am, not what I experience, not what I suffer with, but what I am as a person, broken by the Fall, redeemed through Grace, and trying to live my life as best I can, then what's the point? That you, and God knows how many more, can say this kind of thing shows the depth of your ignorance about gay people and why it is so infuriating that Conservatives can mouth pious platitudes about something they not only know nothing about but are afraid to even learn about, perhaps because the very air coming out of our mouths is tainted. Conservatives claim to have no need to listen, then describe my life as "same sex experience" and cite biased bigoted "science" to support their oh so pious prejudices. Admitting I'm a human being doesn't mean denying your faith, or it shouldn't. If it does, then your faith is false. Sorry to come out so strongly, and to someone who I don't remember posting here very often, and if I'm being unfair, I apologize. But in the last few months I have read Conservatives on this board actively support and justify oppression, make false claims about gay people to support their own prejudice, even enlist the word "science" in their cause, deny that there is any such thing as violence against gay people or that the Church has had a hand in it, and on and on. I am sick of it. If you want to judge what I am, then fine, but the fact that you are more willing to judge what you think I am than bother to find out what I actually am leads me to say "careful, your Christianity is showing."

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 11:56am GMT

Sean Doherty, playing the glad-game, writes: "There are plenty of Anglicans who experience same-sex attraction who do accept Lambeth 1.10 and who are fully included in the church because they do not express their attractions in sexual activity!"

Where Sean sees happy, included, celibate homosexuals cheerfully refraining from the expression of their disordered desires, I see a deplorable web of hypocrisy, half-truths, and institutional deceit. While Sean no doubt knows "plenty" of celibate Anglicans, I see only fellow members of the Church who are desperate and despairing because they belong to a body that insistantly and repeatedly rejects them in the cruellest terms. Perhaps Sean is correct in his estimation, but as Gwendolen tells Cecily, "it is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different."

Posted by Alex at Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 2:11pm GMT

Ford,

I recogize where you're coming from, but in evangelizing younger gay folk, your argument won't fly with regard to having some kind of pastoral and ritual response to their relationships. It does become a matter of naming God's grace in lives thus lived, and younger folk get that. I've on more than one occassion been told thanks but no thanks when they learned TEC or even my dioceses doesn't have some kind of rite to provide pre-counseling, vows exchanged, in a public manner that name how God is working in their lives (blessing). It becomes an evangelism matter. So while there are certainly ways around the law and present moves to disallow such rites altogether make being honest more important to my mind that, sharing the Good News, but not necessarily pointing one to TEC. What we need is lay and gay folk willing to provide rites and blessings regardless of what the priests and bishops do or say. Hearing a word about God's grace in one's life, making public vows, are part of a stabilizing pattern of shifting gay culture, and it is Christianity that has actually helped this along in some aspects. I must say that in the midst of having my person and life abstracted, issuized, et al by left, right, and center, to hear a word of God's love and blessing has made a powerful difference and strengthened our relationship.

Posted by *Christopher at Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 3:13pm GMT

There is an inconsistancy in the Inclusive Church position of urging on others the Lambeth 1.10 commitment to listen, while at the same time rejecting its standard of teaching on human sexuality.
It is also fair to say that people can agree in wanting an inclusive church but disagree on sexual ethics. If churches welcome sinners, surely identifying certain actions as sinful is no barrier to inclusion.

Posted by Erasmus at Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 3:13pm GMT

Hi Ford - thanks for your honest and challenging comments. I certainly don't think you're coming on too strong and I apologise if my post was patronising.

I tend to use the term "experience SSA" because of my past involvement in the Bridges Across community which uses that language in an attempt at neutrality and respect for the integrity of different perceptions of the same phenomenon i.e. it attempts to respect the fact that there are people whom nearly everyone would describe as gay but who for various reasons do not identify themselves as such. I wasn't aware that it came across in such an insulting way outside of that forum so thank you for alerting me to that. I am certainly not "ignorant about gay people", and I am totally convinced of the genuine need to listen to Scripture and the experience of all with an honest openness to changing one's views in the light of what one hears. In the listening I have been privileged to be a part of so far that has not yet happened but one can hardly say in advance that it never will!

Alex: thanks for the wry smile the Wilde quote gave me. What you see certainly exists as well: clearly there is a great deal of hypocrisy too. I do think my point stands that there are gay people who do not agree with and are therefore not represented by Inclusive Church, but in retrospect I do recognise my comment was rather pedantic and trivial so sorry about that.

Posted by Sean Doherty at Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 5:07pm GMT

Christopher,
But this is my point. They prefer to sit in judgement on what they think we are rather than find out the truth, and, when we reject their ignorant judgement, they can consider us horrible perverts who God has obviously abandoned to our sin. They judge us based on pure ignorance and don't wish to have that ignorance dispelled, to the point of promoting scientific dishonesty, and I'm sick of it.

And, honestly, how much is it that gay people see the Church unwilling to acknowledge how God is working in our lives? Or how much of it is about validation, or punishing a Church that has wronged us in the past, or "sticking it to the Man" in some sense? I don't know. I do believe all these things are there, though. God is working in my life, I am convinced, but I couldn't care less if some power hungry Pseudo-Pentecostal half a world away, or down the street, acknowledges that or not. God hears my prayers, so does His Mother! There, that should give 'em a stroke!

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 20 February 2007 at 5:20pm GMT

Merseymike wrote: "So why are you all wasting your time kidding yourselves? Get out, start something new, and leave institutional homophobia behind for good."

Dear MM, I think that many "liberals" hang on when they really should leave because they don't have anywhere else to go.. Unlike the many conservatives who have felt forced to leave TEC out of conviction, liberals don't have a clear vision, or a real conviction, that motivates them to pay the price..

Posted by Dave at Wednesday, 21 February 2007 at 1:46am GMT

'Yep, Merseymike, I've hung on for long enough. I'm joining you on the outside.
Good luck to those who stay,' matthew

Yes, its not half bad out here ! i o w "pretty good!".

You could do worse than give Quakers a go !
(Might see you there!)

Posted by Laurence J Roberts at Wednesday, 21 February 2007 at 2:32pm GMT

There is an inconsistancy in the Inclusive Church position of urging on others the Lambeth 1.10 commitment to listen, while at the same time rejecting its standard of teaching on human sexuality.
It is also fair to say that people can agree in wanting an inclusive church but disagree on sexual ethics. If churches welcome sinners, surely identifying certain actions as sinful is no barrier to inclusion.
Posted by: Erasmus on Tuesday, 20 February 2007.

Please don't make me laugh. 'Standard of teaching' ? It is BS.
It was imposed on the Lambeth Conference, by Carey's thuggery, after the work of Bishop Ndungane's working party had been ambushed by Carey and not even tabled for consideration. L1.10 as it was to become was viciously imposed, by Carey, whose own family don't even live up to his 'Standard'.

146 bishops wrote in shame, disgust and anguish disassociating themselves from it. One was Rowan. And another, the then Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, likened the proceedings, and the atmosphere of anti-gay hate, to aNurenberg Rally !

Such an immoral and deliberate misreading of Scripture, imposed in this draconian manner, does not command the respect of Christian people.

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Wednesday, 21 February 2007 at 2:48pm GMT

Ford, Alex,Sean and others modelling a listening process here. A joy to see, and deeply encouraging.

Thank you guys...

Also a Wildean word does all our hearts good !

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Wednesday, 21 February 2007 at 2:51pm GMT

Cheers Laurence, I think that's where I'm heading. Bless you.

Posted by matthew hunt at Wednesday, 21 February 2007 at 6:05pm GMT
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.