Lambeth 2008: More talk about sex
Posted March 27, 2007
The Anglican Communion Office is developing what it calls "A Study Guide For use at the Lambeth Conference 2008 on: The Process of Listening to Gay and Lesbian people and Mutual Listening on Human Sexuality."
The guide hasn't been written yet, but it appears the Western church is driving the agenda, not the Global South. Here are some of the statements about what the document's creators hope to include:
"We are aware of the huge contribution gay and lesbian Christians in the mission and ministry of the church and we would like reflections on what, if any, specific contribution to spirituality for the whole church has come form and is available to from those who are attracted to people of the same sex.
"We ask for reflections of those who have experience of victimisation and diminishment due to their ethnicity or gender and seek to ask if there is any relationship with the victimisation of gay and lesbian Christians."
"How has the church moved on in its understanding of the role of issues such as women priests and slavery and does this have any relevance for our attitude to lesbian and gay Christians?"
"How can we as a church enable listening in safe space and common ground?
We seek best practice and stories of listening.
We specifically want to hear how listening can happen in places where homosexuality is illegal or the prevailing culture is hostile or even dangerous for gay and lesbian people."
Comments
The previous comments aside, let's get one thing straight:
If you scratch the southern Anglican distaste for homosexuality, you get mysogyny. The real problem with homosexuality isn't some rarefied read of scripture (they are glad to NOT be fundamentalist and to be culturally accomodating in other arenas) but her men are acting "like women" and vice versa. Very taboo.
I hope we can do some real, honest theology and ethics around sexuality--I doubt it will be at Lambeth, but who knows.
I do think I hear some eggs breaking for the preparation of some Anglican fudge, though. You think, Caleb?
Not during Lent, Prester John. Perhaps some of those light omelets.
I can't figure out what's going on here. I thought we wanted to stay in the Anglican Communion. A decent politician would look for a way to delay everything out, to give everyone time to settle down and compromise.
Instead they're creating a casus belli by rejecting the requests of the Anglican primates out of hand, without dilly-dallying as they should. They could have conceivably stretched this out to 2008 when the next House of Bishops meeting is scheduled.
But nooooo.
They have to pick a big fight with the Anglicans and dare them to throw us out. If this is truly the policy of the powers that be, they may get what they wish for.
Editor's note: I believe the next House of Bishops meeting is in September 2007. The next General Convention is in the summer of 2009.
The Primates of the Global South know fudge when they see it. The Anglican Communion Office has shown itself to be adept at making fudge, but Anglicans don't have to eat it.
You're right, Frank. I meant the General Convention in 2009; they could easily have said that only the General Convention had the authority to deal with the issues posed by the Anglican primates.
But noooooo . . . . .
Ok, so if the Bishops act they should defer to GC and if they don't act they're avoiding the issue?
For one, I'm glad to see the Bishops clearly and respectfully call for clarity and respect for Anglican polity and history in all this. The church (not just the Episcopal church) has needed to thrash out a theology of sexuality for a long time, and if this dialogue bears some fruit I'm all for it.
James, of what dialogue are you speaking? The dialogue on homosexuality and women's ordination started 20 years ago in TEC and is pretty much over. The sides have harded off, recognizing that there is really nothing more to discuss.
The one the Primates appear to be asking for, the one Frank describes the inititation of in his post on this topic above.
There never has been a discussion of gender and sexuality, really--not even back in the 1970's.
It is interesting, though, how in some of the breakaway groups women function as priests and deacons--and ironic, since the last big breakaway movement was about women's ordination.
Alright let me sum this up. A person is identified as "gay" because of the kind of sex that they have. You can't argue that. Even if they aren't having it, they are wanting to have it or they wouldn't be calling themselves gay.
That being the case, shall we look at the kind of sex that they have? No of course not! If I posted the results of several surveys of gay men as to the kind of sexual activities they have then 1) you would never get posted and 2) Frank's hair would stand on end and his head would spin around!
So if you want this information on what makes a person "gay" check out this information gathered by the Westboro Baptist Church: http://www.godhatesfags.com/fags/fagfacts.html