Matthew's Journal

I came away from Gledhill's article thinking her main point was 'If Anglicanism isn't a vehicle for liberal ideas, then what is the point of it?'.

Yes, we should condemn those laws in Uganda (that the church (even outside of Anglicanism) seems not to want to do so makes me wonder if the issue is more complex than the (generally anti-church, pro homosexual) media is presenting.

I don't see why we can't do both things - condemn the TEC for creating a schism, moving away from the Bible, and Christian tradition for 2,000 years, AND condemn the Uganda anti-gay law.

I basically agree -- though apparently the rhetoric in Ugandan is such that the West can't say anything without pushing them further away on this issue.

Also, I think his statement on the second openly gay* tried merely to state the obvious 'this will cause problems in the Communion' though the second paragraph on the fact that it still has to be ratified looks a bit like trying to interfere in internal TEC politics.

*apparently there have in fact been bishops who have come out after being appointed.

I think Rowan isn't commenting because speaking out strongly against it will just mean that Uganda enact it on the basis of western opposition. His speaking on the matter risks sounding something like a colonial encroachment. It is also a matter for the Ugandan government, (although I concede that that is influenced by the Ugandan church).

However, the US election of a second homosexual bishop is an ecclesial matter. Indeed, it seems to be snubbing much of the rest of the communion, and the commitment to /dialogue/ and not just doing what you please.

Indeed, I worry that there will probably be a link between the US's brash acting and Uganda passing the law (although possibly not a direct one).

I don't think Ruth Gledhill makes sense about anything really. I can't figure out her viewpoint, and half the time, she doesn't seem to really understand any of the issues that she has to write about.