Church politics in "depressing" shock

[emperor]

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the views expressed in this Grauniad blog entry. When ++Rowan is issuing statements condemning the election of a second homosexual bishop in the USA, but not issuing statements condemning the proposed criminalising of homosexuality in Uganda (including the death penalty for "aggravated" cases), nor the support of that law by Uganda's bishops, then it leaves a very unfortunate image of what the Church's priorities are. Surely protecting the already discriminated-against homosexual minority in Uganda from state oppression is the urgent priority?

Comments

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

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.

[lnr]

Gledhill's article? I can't spot anything by someone of that name, am I being thick?

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I failed to link to (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6946709.ece) Gledhill's commentary.

[lnr]

Ta! I was a bit confused :)