09/26/2007
Episcopal Church Caves to Anti-Gay Anglicans, Pledges Restraint
The U.S. Episcopal Church, in a move meant to patch the international rift in the Anglican church since the consecration of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson in 2003, announced on Tuesday that they would no longer be consecrating any gay bishops and will not be publicly blessing any same-sex unions until there is more consensus on the practice.
The Associated Foreign Press reports: "The Episcopal House of Bishops reaffirmed its decision to 'exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.' The church leaders also pledged 'not to authorize or use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion or until (the) General Convention takes further action.' But it was not clear whether clergy would be allowed to carry out unauthorized blessings of same-sex unions. The statement meant to clarify the church's position noted that clergy have a pastoral duty to 'respond with love and understanding to the people of all sexual orientations... (and) maintain a breadth of private responses to situations of individual pastoral care.'"
Said Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori: "This resolution really is the result of finding common ground to stand on. Not everyone was 100 percent happy with every word in this document, as you might imagine, but together we believe that we have found a place that all of us can stand together."
According to the Church Times, "The statement also asks for more progress in the listening process, called for at the 1998 Lambeth Conference, to ensure that the views of gays and lesbians were heard more widely around the Communion. And it affirms the Church’s commitment to protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian people, 'and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them, encourages violence toward them, or violates their dignity as children of God.'"
Episcopals give ground on gay bishops [chicago tribune]
US Anglicans agree to halt gay bishop ordinations [afp]
Recently
Anglican Archbishop Defends Gays at U.S. Gathering of Bishops [tr]
Posted 8:29 AM EST by Andy Towle in Anglican church, Episcopal Church, News, Religion | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
f I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Bertrand Russell
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.
Richard Dawkins
Posted by: David | Sep 26, 2007 9:00:33 AM
Too bad... I was hopeful after the recent post about Rowan Williams that the church would take a principled stand. I guess it's just too much to ask...
I simply don't understand why the Episcopal Church wants to associate itself with a bunch of freakish conservative thugs in Africa. They have absolutely nothing to gain by the association that I can see, other than the preservation of some "communion" that never existed in the first place. It's sad to see that the Americans have caved in to fear. Again.
Posted by: Brian | Sep 26, 2007 9:09:58 AM
you gays who want to join x-tian groups are like a jew who wants to join the nazi party. much better to be a witch, the goddess doesn't care what your sexuality is and in some cases, the more kinkier, the better. namaste
Posted by: the queen | Sep 26, 2007 9:27:09 AM
This is an attempt to find a middle ground on an issue for which there is no middle ground. Either gay people are children of God and entitled to full participation in the church or we are unrepentant sinners. The middle ground never works and this effort will fail.
I was raised Episcopal and am very glad that I left the church.
Posted by: sam | Sep 26, 2007 9:34:09 AM
Also raised Episcopal and no longer attending. Shamanic practice doesn't care, either, whether I'm gay or not.
Posted by: raybob | Sep 26, 2007 9:48:23 AM
"... it affirms the Church’s commitment to protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian people, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that... violates their dignity as children of God."
What a load of BS.
Oh, the sad, sad irony.
Posted by: darb | Sep 26, 2007 9:50:49 AM
Perfect quotations, David! Thank you for reminding us how mindbogglingly brilliant Bertrand Russell was.
Attention gay Episcopalians: now is the time to reclaim your balls. Some poisonous vines have grown too big to cut down outright. The only solution is to do nothing to nourish them, let them wither and eventually die on their own.
Stop attending Episcopal services—even those few that will remain defiantly "accepting"—unless it is to pass out leaflets, carry signs, shout your rage about their treating you and those you love like scum; like something subhuman.
Most importantly stop giving them money unless you are so self-loathing that you would give money to a group of people who individually and collectively spat in your face. Each dollar you give, each check you write, is like an invitation to them that says, "Please keep spitting on me. I don't deserve anything better."
If you still feel the need to worship teapots, there are other places you can go without requiring that you be spit upon, that you leave your balls, your pride, your dignity at the door though, "Dignity," the group of gay Catholic self-haters and fools is not one of them]. Try the gay-created and run Metropolitan Community Church, or the United Church of Christ.
A plague on the houses of "worship" of Bishop Schori and her congregation of spit. Jesus wept.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 26, 2007 10:57:26 AM
I think it's very interesting that the focus has been 100% on gay people. Why is no one mentioning that the African Bishops are also demanding a moratorium on FEMALE priests and bishops? Where is the Episcopal Church's (which is, by the way, lead by a female arch-bishop) compromise on that demand?
This latest, and ONCE AGAIN one sided, compromise will not satisfy the rabidly homophobic African tyrants. The end result will be that the Episcopal Church will be left in no different position than they would have been if they had acted with courage and stood on their principles. Well, actually they will be left in a different position. Rather than being a church that stood on principle and showed courage in the face of expulsion they will be the expelled church with no principles and no balls.
I'd much rather be the former than the latter and that's why I'm no longer Episcopal.
Posted by: Zeke | Sep 26, 2007 10:57:50 AM
There seems to have been no discussion of theology or doctrine, just political negotiation. The critical point is not the African churches, but the conservative American churches and the danger of those churches leaving to the wealth of the church worldwide. Property within the church is mostly controlled by local diocese, so any that broke off, though they would have to support themselves in new ways, would be able through the court system, take full possession of all the assets and receipts of their locale, and thus deprive the whole church of the "profit" or "cut" that would normally be distributed. Many liberal diocese have very poor attendance and simply could not support themselves. Thus, they were forced to conform.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Sep 26, 2007 12:24:10 PM
Our local LGBT center lists two Episcopal churches as "welcoming".
I am going to request that they be removed.
Not permanently of course, just for a few years and until we hold a few conferences and everyone in the world is in agreement that they be listed and .....
Or until they return to their senses.
Posted by: Patrick ONeill | Sep 26, 2007 12:29:56 PM
When you stand up for love. More and more people will stand beside you in support of love. This choice denigrates love in all it's forms. It lends the forces of fear room in which to operate while stabbing at the heart of those who stand up for love in all it's forms.
Some may see it as a way forward but they are fooling themselves. This acquiescence in the face of bigotry and fear facilitates suffering and allows others to continue to hurt and denigrate all humanity and the light that connects us to each other.
The bigots won't respect this compromise or those who made it. They may not have agreed with the stand, it may have split the church, but they would have respected the decision had it been affirmed through conviction. Now the church surrenders dignity and respect in the name of unity.
Posted by: Michael | Sep 26, 2007 12:37:18 PM
MICHAEL,
Your words on this matter are eloquent, indeed! I believe they should be read by the leaders of the Episcopal Church.
xo,
peterparker
Posted by: peterparker | Sep 26, 2007 1:09:50 PM
And you know what's ironic? The African churches reject the communion of gay unions solely because they believe such practices are a western invention (and evil, of course). Very original for a continent that worships mostly western and middle eastern gods. Although I'm dissapointed that the American church would give in and succumb to their (african counterparts)demands, I'm not the slightest surprised. After all, of the 77 million members worldwide, almost half of them are in Africa, and Nigeria(one of the most homophobic states in the World) alone holds about 20 million members(if not more). So the church knows better than angering them and risk loosing a fellowship that humungously large.
Posted by: Shabaka | Sep 26, 2007 1:57:15 PM
I don't understand why LGBTIQ people would ever join an organization where their basic civil rights are up for debate. I am a member of the United Church of Christ (www.ucc.org), a progressive mainline protestant denomination that is in full support of LGBTIQ equality, including marriage equality. The UCC is a wonderful American religious tradition. We are the first to ordain a woman (in 1863), the first to oppose slavery, first to support suffrage, the first to ordain a gay man (in 1972), and now the first denomination to support full marriage equality (in 2005).
Posted by: David | Sep 26, 2007 2:04:12 PM
Cowards. I belong to the Old Catholic Church, OSJTB.ORG, and find it refreshing to be excepted for who I am.
Posted by: AngryCitizen | Sep 26, 2007 2:15:59 PM
I am a 30 year straight member of a very accepting Episcopal Church. I joined the Episcopal Church not because it had all the answers or even better answers but because more answers could be explored without infernal carping (and I liked the outfits). It is easy to understand a LGBT friend's desire to leave for better surroundings. TEC has earned no more. TEC and the Communion have listened to the threats and obviously considered them meritorious. Since the threat of withdrawing membership is something to which TEC listens, I suggest the following: LGBY members remain in TEC until the 2009 General Convention. In the meantime organize for a mass Exodus if TEC does not change its position in 2009. The next two years can be a time you make your greatest contributions to TEC. Let the church know what it will be losing and make it clear what it will be losing it if things don't change. Communicate with all the rectors, Bishops, especially Bishop Schori. Finally, if and when that day comes I will leave with you. If a church can not obey its own canons, succumbs to threats and violates its understanding of scripture, it is no longer worthy of our support or membership.
Posted by: Bill Weems | Sep 26, 2007 3:56:40 PM
The participants here who have bashed Christianity and Christians in general are just as guilty of prejudice as Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson - only the target is different. And though folks may feel justified in hating Christianity, homophobes feel justified in hating GLBTQ people. People may feel it appropriate to mock and belittle faith and spirituality, but then, homophobes feel it appropriate to mock and belittle same-sex relationships.
David, Leland, "the Queen" - your arguments are nothing more than variations of the arguments used by homophobes, only you've changed the target to people of faith. Since it is bigotry when homophobes employ distortion, exageration, generalization and contempt to describe the diversity of GLBTQ lives, it is also bigotry when you do it to describe the diversity of Christian life and belief, and spirituality in general.
Dawkins is a bigot, no different from any other bigot.
Posted by: David S. | Sep 26, 2007 4:32:51 PM
As a member of a welcoming and inclusive Episcopalian parish who left his childhood faith home on the journey "out", allow me to say that you are all correct; your anger is just and well placed.
However, let me also add:
It ain't over until it's over. This is a small step in a long journey in a big organization, and when "order" is involved, nonsensical procedures take place.
But, why would I leave a parish and diocese that is authentic, practices justice, and feeds and houses the homeless? To many parishes and dioceses, the statement from the bishops alters no current practice (Our opponents are very aware of this, and at some point will "walk".). The Episcopal Church is very different than Roman Catholic in its structure. Don't let the robes fool you!
"Like Jews joining the Nazi Party?" Many on this thread represent different paths to improve ourselves in the search of what is good, eternal and possibly divine. While there are many unhealthy places for the GLBTQ individual to engage in that pursuit, most of TEC, IMHO, is not one of them. I would not consider denigrating another's pursuit, but wish them peace.
Besides, if I left TEC, who would be left to do the hard work necessary for those that follow us? The "out" among us have all had our part to play in the face of apparently insurmountable odds. Rather than resorting to the very tired labeling others as "self-loathing", why not encourage those who are engaged in battles to which your yourself are not called.
Posted by: KJ | Sep 26, 2007 4:37:43 PM
I could see how a gay man or woman would leave the church over this, but is there enough support among str8 people that any of them would leave the church over this?? I have my doubts.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Sep 26, 2007 4:44:31 PM
David S.
Nonsense.
I'm not the one running around enacting legislation or saying so and so should or shouldn't exist or have certain rights. Besides, I endorse their right to think and believe whatever it is that they want to believe; I still think it's silly. However, I would also like them to keep their filthy, stupid minds out of my respectable, love-filled life.
Posted by: David | Sep 26, 2007 5:17:27 PM
...but then again, I'm not living in a black / white, us / them world, either. Naturally I prefer a pleasant, respectful believer who thinks to an gay atheist asshole. I probably fall into the latter category some time, especially when people are discussing amending my federal governments founding document to make BLOODY WELL SURE I don't get married.
But most of the time I'm a pleasant live and let live kind of guy. Really. So the people with stupid, filthy minds (and you know who you are) are who I am referring to, and not all people who believe in a deity.
I do still think you're silly. At posting date, that was still legal, if not quite nice.
Posted by: David | Sep 26, 2007 5:41:59 PM
David S., kindly don't put words — or anything else — in my mouth. Your assertion that I "bashed Christianity and Christians in general" is offensively wrong. My comments clearly addressed only the homophobic hierarchy of the Episcopal church and those members who support them. I even suggested specific Christian denomination alternatives for those who need and choose to believe.
But even if I had condemned all theists, your equating such theoretical comments with the vile, violence-promoting ejaculations of Phelps and Robertson, and calling Dawkins a bigot simply because he believes differently and opposes the inanities and tax-free brutalities foisted upon others by some religions, is nothing less than retarded.
Crawl on your belly back to the churches that reject you if you wish, and you clearly do. While not explicitly stated, the Constitution provides you with the freedom to be stupid.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 26, 2007 6:42:15 PM
David S.--what you have written here is totally, utterly absurd.
Posted by: jmg | Sep 26, 2007 8:43:06 PM
David
Whenever someone relies on a word rebuttal like 'nonsense' I know they have nothing credible to defend their position with.
Not all Christians are "enacting legislation" - many are working their asses off to fight anti-gay legislation. Perhaps you have no clue about GLBTQ civil rights in the U.S., and the role that liberal people of faith have played in advancing our civil rights. Your quotes exactly mirror that anti-gay rhetoric coming from conservative religionists, and you are no different from them except in who you target. The false comparison of the tea pot, which mocks and rejects the experiences of people of faith, is no different from the tactics homophobes use to mock and reject the emotional and spiritual experiences of GLBTQ people. Your post is full of what you complain about.
As for living in a world defined by polarity - that is precisely what you expressed - a world where religion is entirely black.
Your summation of religion as silly is no different than other people's summation of homosexuality as sin. You think people of faith are silly, some of them think you are a sinner. Two sides of the same coin.
Posted by: David S. | Sep 26, 2007 9:01:55 PM
Leland
False accusations, like the one you leveled at me, are typical of homophobes as well. I did not "put words in your mouth". When you reduced people's religious belief to "worship teapots" - you did exactly what homophobes do when they characterize same-sex relationships as mere lust. Different target, different insult, same process.
Further, labeling my arguments 'retarded' only shows that you cannot or will not refute them on the facts. Once again, that kind of empty, pejorative dismissal is SOP for homophobes.
Lastly, the "crawl on your belly" remarks demonstrates exactly the same emotion that homophobes display - contempt and a desire to degrade. Just as they insist that homosexuality is degrading, you have just portrayed my faith as degrading.
Your arguments are their arguments - just turned about. And like their arguments, yours are just as degrading and abusive to other people.
Since GLBTQ people do not like being judging and condemned for the actions of some - like the new Folsom Fair poster - it is wrong for us to judge and condemn all people of faith for the cowardice, cruelty or hypocrisy of some people of faith.
Posted by: David S. | Sep 26, 2007 9:14:48 PM