Priorities

[flexibeast]

Gay rights debate threatens worldwide Anglican conference:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has threatened to cancel an important once-a-decade conference of Anglican bishops because he fears it will breakdown during debate over gay rights. . . .

He accused many international Anglican bishops of misreading the bible on questions of homosexuality. . . .

Archbishop Williams said that the conference could become a dysfunctional debate over gay rights, gay marriage and the ordination of gay and lesbian priests.

Personally, i think the bible is fairly clear in its condemnation of same-sex-oriented sexuality¹ (refer to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible for the details); but that's okay, because unless we're also willing to go along with the Bible's failure to condemn such things as slavery and genocide, it's clear that it's not the be-all and end-all of guidance on issues of morality.

Questions of doctrine aside, however, i'm disturbed by the fact that this issue is sufficiently contentious to have reached the point where it might cause an international Anglican conference to be cancelled - a conference at which Anglicans would (should!) presumably also be discussing trivial issues such as, oh, i don't know, the ever-widening gap between the rich and poor, the massive numbers of people living in absolute poverty and dying of malnutrition and preventable diseases, the appalling human rights abuses happening every second of every day everywhere around the world, the ethnically- and religiously-driven violence happening in places like Iraq, and the small matter of global warming.

If the 'leaders' of the international Anglican community can't get together to discuss these issues because they can't agree on doctrine regarding same-sex sexuality, then i would suggest that they are far more morally bankrupt than two or more people of the same sex or gender giving each other love and pleasure could ever be.

---

1. i use the phrase "same-sex oriented sexuality" instead of 'homosexuality' because i'm pretty sure that the condemnation is not limited to those who sexual preferences involve same-sex attraction only, but to anyone who engages in same-sex love and lust.
 

Comments

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

No doubt many of them would agree that they are more morally bankrupt, but the trouble is that the accepting half think this of the rejecting half and vice versa.

Anglicans never agree on anything, really.

[sacred-harlot.livejournal.com]

Very well said Sweetie!

Much Love,
sacred harlot XxX.

[itisacon.livejournal.com]

It is indeed a shame that Anglicans get into this bind, although I suggest it is the Archbishop of Canterbury who is stirring things up because of his liberal views. I went onto his website last night and read one of his sermons on inclusiveness. There is also bits and pieces of another speech about him wanting the Anglican Church to be a safe place for 'gays and lesbian' people. I think we can probably read that as being including transgendered and transexual people. He seems very inclusive but way ahead of the Bishops from some parts of the world who have very closed minds.
Hugs

[porcineflight.livejournal.com]

I am not so sure acceptance really does include bisexuals... here is a link to an opinion piece about Australian Archbishop Carnley...

http://bi.org.au/culture/talk/sabinanowak.htm

[itisacon.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link porcineflight. I agree that the liberals in the church still have a long way to go while they cling to metaphor of fidelity as a model of God's relationship with humans. The better metaphor is probably one of promiscuity and wide social sexuality. As the consciousness reflected in the scriptures struggles with an ever widening conceptualisation of God's love old metaphors need to be seen for what they are, pointers along the way to an improving conceptualisation of god. Just because god's fidelity to an individual may be likened to the fidelity that can exist between individuals does not mean that that is god's preference or indeed god's nature. I take heart in the current debate over sexuality in the christian churches because the furore and heat means that lgbt+ people are bringing worthwhile challenges to their notion of love.

[porcineflight.livejournal.com]

But god loves and is loyal to LOTS of people :) + how many Brides of Christ are there?

[winterkoninkje.livejournal.com]

Regarding where biblical texts actually stand on the matter, I recommend Wrestling with God & Men by Rabbi Greenberg. While a few of the quotes listed in your link are from the new testament, the supposed strongest condemnations are from the old testament, which rabbi does an excellent job of analyzing for what they really say. As with all things biblical, one should be extremely skeptical of drawing conclusions from any portion of it in translation. Even if one takes the bible, torah, etc as the literal word of god, that does not mean that people who have translated it since then have been as holy.

Personally, I think a lot of the anti-gay sentiment that christians derive from the bible comes, not from the original bible (to the extent such a thing existed), but rather from other versions which added the anti-gay sentiment of the times in when translating. Same holds for a lot of other things people claim are in there. Though of course, the whole pick and choose bit (ignoring things like widows marrying their husband's brothers) throws the whole moral edifice into question.

[porcineflight.livejournal.com]

A lot of the worst stuff in the new testament is in the Letters of St Paul... I am not sure how much truth about Jesus' beliefs should be credited so this man who never met Jesus, was an enemy of the Christians and a brutal bigot to boot before becoming Born Again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Damascus

[cheshire-bitten.livejournal.com]

Hey, I sent you an email, I don't know where I am going tonight.