Church rant [Matthew's Journal]

Recent going on in the Anglican communion have caused an old rant of mine to bubble to the surface again, so I wrote it up and posted it to Usenet. I also reproduce it here. Please, this item is not the place for TGGD, slagging off Christianity, etc.

I have become increasing frustrated with the state of the Anglican
Communion (of which I am a member) recently. Particularly, the way in
which debate over homosexuality and the ordination of women has been
conducted strikes me as falling far below the standards of conduct to
which we, as Christians, are called.

There are members of my local church who disagree with me on many
issues - the nature of the eucharist, ordination of women,
homosexuality, soteriology, interpreting scripture, and so on. Despite
this, we are happy to share a church with each other, discuss these
issues, and sometimes agree to differ. Within the CofE, I'm sure I
also disagree with people on liturgical styles, purgatory, judgement,
the best approach to evangelism, as well as the above issues. This
isn't a problem to me - I consider that we as Christians are called to
unity; we confess a common creed, and draw our theology from
scripture, reason, experience and the deep pool that is the Anglican
tradition. I even sometimes disagree with the preachers at my
church. This gives me thinks to think about and discuss, not reason to
leave the church.

The ecumenical movement has taught us a lot about the value of
Christian unity. St. Augustine taught that schism was sinful,
considering particularly the parable of the wheat and the tares[1] -
God will separate the wheat from the tares when the time is right,
and humans should not attempt to do so in God's place. The Church is
like a hospital where sinful souls may come to find healing, not a
club for the righteous.

People differ on whether homosexuality is a sin or not. Whilst one
side may be a majority over the other, both command significant
support amongst lay people, clergy and theologians. Saying that one
viewpoint is "simple bigotry" or "intellectual hoop-jumping around
the meaning of scripture" is just insult-trading. Similarly claming
that one's own viewpoint is "the plain meaning of scripture" or
"properly applying the commandment to love neighbour" is to
over-simplify and to fail to respect the opposing view. Christians
can reach either position after considerable prayer reflection, study
of scripture, and so on, and both sides really should appreciate
that. Hearing that one primate is holding a celebratory dinner as
ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada are told to withdraw from the
Anglican Consultative Council until 2008[2] is deeply
disappointing. Is this really an example of how Christians should
conduct themselves?

Similarly, given that in some parts of the world, people face death
simply for being homosexual[3], I was dismayed to find an Anglican
archbishop writing in the Church Times to say that homosexuals are an
abomination. Should we not be speaking out against injustice, against
the persecution of minorities? Should we not be welcoming the outcasts
into our churches with open arms? If we believe that homosexuality is
sinful, then a careful, considerate pastoral approach can be adopted
where homosexuals are made to feel fully welcome into the body of
Christ, and helped to discern what God wants for them.

Finally, I should ask what message we as a Church are presenting to
the world. The headlines are full of "Church to split over gays", not
"Church reaches out to the needy". Now, I know that's partly a matter
of editorial bias, but I think it's still a valid reflection of the
issues that outsiders must think are important to church
people.

"We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church". Isn't it
about time we all, as Christians, thought long and hard about how that
applies to us?

[1] Matthew 13:24-30
[2] source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4296373.stm
[3] for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3653140.stm

October

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25 1
26	27	28	29	30	31

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

I agree with you. I think this whole issue is in the same category as the "food offered to idols" issue in Corinthians: each side should do what they consider best glorifies God, and agree to differ. I think people who say that food offered to idols was not an issue of the same magnitude have fundamentally misunderstood its importance in the early Church.

I do also wonder whether this issue would have come to a head in quite the same way if the Western churches had handled the issue of African polygamy better.

[link] [reply]

I don't know. I mean, it's OK to agree to differ about what you belive in but I don't think that it's OK to say 'OK guys you blieve gay people are evil, so you do that, and we'll just ignore it when you beat up gay people and shoot them and etc. etc.' which is probably why people can't just say 'well shucks, I guess we have a difference of opinions here'. And presumably on the other side it's 'but we must make sure that we don't let sinful people lead other people into sin' or something (like gay people evangelise gayness or something) and they also feel that they can't let the argument lie because, well, they *care*. So everybody's all fussed about it because, well, if you're gay you don't want to be attacked and beaten and killed for it nor do you want to be ostracised from your comunity but if you think gay people are wrong and evil you don't want to be near any of them (contagious?) and you certainly don't want them preaching and since in many places there is only one church in an area you can't really just say 'well this church is a gay friendly church and this other one isn't' because whilst that would work someplace like Cambridge where there are many many churches it wouldn't work in Hicksville USA where there is only one church to go to.

The problem with organised religeon is that it's impossible to keep it organised... but it sure would be nice if sometimes the headline could be 'church helps people' rather thank 'church sucks, shocker'. Of course the 'church' doesn't really represent all the people in it very well, especially not in the way that it is reported, so obviously many Christians are helping people and it just isn't in the news.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Yeah, I agree with your point, but I think you're over-simplifying. The strict delineation between 'gay-friendly' and 'shoots fags' which you imply doesn't exist - one of the more encouraging developments in recent years is that the evangelical churches have managed to start treating gay people as ordinary human beings (sometimes). Not all evangelicals are out to beat up homosexuals - though I know there's a very unpalatable stream within Christianity which does encourage exactly that.

Coming from a liberal, pro-gay Christian perspective, I think there's a big difference between those who advocate hatred, ostracism and even violence against gays - such views, I believe, have no place whatsoever in a Christian church; and those who take a "love the sinner, hate the sin" sort of position - that is, those who say, "Of course one should have compassion for gay people as for any other people, and Christians should not hate or commit violence against anyone. But, the Bible is very clear that homosexual practice is a sin, and the church must lovingly but firmly proclaim that, and must call gay people to live holy and celibate lives.". I think there are many Christians who do take that view, though in the media we only tend to hear from the hate-mongers. I believe such views are wrong, and sometimes damagingly wrong, but there I think it should be possible to agree to differ, and to remain in communion, and I don't think it helps to call people with those views bigots and fundamentalists and so forth. (Perhaps I'm biased, as those were my views in my younger days.)

While the greater sin, I think, is on the part of those who deliberately foster hatred and violence against gays, I think liberal Christians can be guilty of tarring all those who take a traditionalist position on sexuality with the bigot brush, and I don't think this is right, Christian, or helpful.

I don't think that even the Archbishop of Nigeria is in favour of beating homosexuals with big sticks. Most if not all Christians in the anti-gay camp would agree that the best response is to minister to sinners with love and compassion, while praying for they repentence. Indeed, I recall that this point was emphasised by the primates.

The question is not therefore whether it is tolerable to ignore anti-gay violence, because all Christians, as far as I know, agree that this is wrong, but whether it is tolerable to share bread with bigots, or, conversely, with unrepentent sinners. As

emperor says, both points are hard to maintain, give the eating arrangements of Jesus himself. At the same time, I am mindful that St Maximillian refused to share bread with monothelites. I am not completely sure, but I doubt that Augustine would have administered communion to a known and unrepentent Donatist. While I am a huge fan of Augustine, I must reluctantly agree with

arnhem's point below: Augustine's point about the tares and the wheat was in essence a refutation of Donatism, and Augustine was ultimately, although reluctantly, complicit in the imperial repression of the same.

Surely

lizw's point about bread offered to idols is the right analogy. Where there is vehement disagreement between Christians in good faith as to which course is sinful, we ought not to be in the business of excluding those who seem to us sinful (which is the Donatist view), but rather we ought to be avoiding giving our brothers and sisters cause to stumble, while praying that they will be brought back into the way of truth and also being open to the possibility that it is we ourselves who are in error, and listening honestly to the spirit's call. And I must agree with

emperor that I can see little of that in the current debate, where the two sides rather give the impression that they are hoping that the others will stumble, so that they can have the satisfaction of seeing them condemned to everlasting hell-fire.

The point about a anti-gay stance from the church and anti-gay violence is, surely, that if "the church" decries homosexuals as abominations, or at best unrepentent sinners, then the less theologically informed won't take that as a message to minister with compassion, but as a message that they (we?) are lesser beings and need not be treated with the respect due a fellow human. I think

emperor was saying that if you don't send out a positive message, a negative one will be, in many places, assumed.

Oh the other hand, you have on a uk newsgroup someone saying that the Anglican Communion is soft on homosexuals because they don't burn them at the stake (link). I am pretty sure that isn't a "funny" response, given what I know of the poster

I think all of this applied to the "food offered to idols" issue, with the possible exception of the risk of being beaten up, which I have not heard as a concern of gay people in relation to churchgoing.

Amen. I'm deeply, deeply saddened by the news I heard yesterday.

All heavily seconded.

What makes it so difficult to watch is that because it's being manifested in the relationships between countries rather than people, I can't help but feel that there really is nothing I can do but pray my socks off for wisdom for those who think that celebratory dinner parties are appropriate rather than a mourning for the schism of the Communion.

Yes, this is something I find difficult as well. I wonder, though, whether there is also anything we can do to better understand where they are coming from?

Amen, brother! Really couldn't agree more. The sheer intolerance of Christians for each other, and refusal to even attempt to understand,is bewildering and disheartening.

While I, of couse, mutter "a plague on both your houses", I thought you might like Andrew Rilstone's take on the gay bishops thing, which I found thoughtful and funny. It was written some time ago, rather than in response to recent developments, but it seems relevant again now.

Thanks for that! I've always rather liked Andrew Rilstone's writings.

I am in full agreement with this post.

St Augustine taught that schism was sinful

However, that appears to have meant that the church should have one common view, rather than that it should embrace many, if my reading of secondary sources is correct?

That is, his objection to the current situation would not have been that the Anglican communion has split into two parts, but that there had been any disagreement about the matters in question in the first place?

I don't think I entirely agree, but I've not read Augustine in enough detail to be really convincing. Particularly, he says that sacraments are still effective if carried out by evil priests. So whilst you might think your female/gay priest/bishop was EBW, sacraments they administer should still be considered valid.

In my copious free time(TM), I'll try and find the primary material. In the mean time, an excerpt, courtesy of my Reader:

"..wherefore, any one who is on the side of the devil cannot defile the sacrament, which is of Christ...When baptism is adminstered by the words of the gospel, however great the evil of either minister or recipient may be, the sacrament itself is holy on account of the one whose sacrament it is..." [truncated because I don't want to type a lot]

I think that the issue of a particular wrong-minded priest and their impact on their congregation is a bit of a red-herring; both the situation that's triggered this discussion, and the St Augustine point you originally raised, I _think_, deal with (large) group rather than individual schism.

Can an individual have a schism? 8-) (shades of "splitter!).

Indeed. Your point becomes confused as regards the Donatists, who essentially opted for schism on the grounds that the traditores should be considered permanently outside of the church, so any church which allowed them to continue to minister was contaminated by their presence. It is difficult to see how he could have opposed this view and not fallen foul of your objection above...

On further reflection, I think it's relevant in the cases where parishes are boycotting their bishop. I'm only aware of this being where the bishop has ordained women priests or voted for the election of Gene Robinson to the episcopate, but there may exist liberal parishes boycotting conservative bishops (if so, I'd like to hear about it, so I can be fair)

Griswold said on the R4 Sunday programme this morning that alternative provision for liberal parishes under conservative bishops was needed, so I take it there either are, or soon will be, such parishes.

He also sounded heartily glad that he will have retired by the time of the next Lambeth Conference, and I can't say I blame him.

I must admit, this polite ultimatum is making me seriously consider whether I wish to continue to support the Anglican Communion. It is somewhat bad timing on the church's part to do this during my annual reconsideration of my planned giving :-)

The Anglican Communion is a mish-mash of sinners, saints, holy people, scum-balls and a whole range inbetween. I think I fit right in :)

(no subject) — (anonymous) [screened]

To the anonymous poster who left an unhelpful comment: I'm only going to unscreen things if you're prepared to admit to who you are.