No fleece
I’ve found Giles Fraser irritatingly woolly in the past, but he’s not woolly on the subject of the Anglican cop-out. He’s very sheared indeed. Nary a punch is pulled.
The deal that the archbishop has brokered with the Episcopal church in New Orleans protects the unity of the church by persuading US bishops that the church is more important than justice…For all the high-sounding rhetoric about how much they value gay people, the church has once again purchased its togetherness by excluding the outsider…OK, so no one has died here…[O]ught we not to get a bit more perspective? No: the struggle for the full inclusion of lesbian and gay people in the life of the church is a frontline battle in the war against global religious fascism. Robert Mugabe has called homosexuals “worse than dogs and pigs”. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government denies that gay people exist in Iran, and hangs the ones it finds. The Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria thinks homosexuality “evil” and “cancerous”. There can be no compromise with any of this, irrespective of whether it is backed up by dodgy readings of holy texts or not.
No compromise? But what of diversity? What of their culture? What of respect? What of sensitivity? The hell with all that, says the Vicar of Putney; well done.
Many know that the logic of the New Orleans deal is the logic of unity through exclusion…[T]his whole sorry business is as visceral as a group of playground kids coming together to slag off the [child] with the unfashionable haircut or funny accent. Finding someone to point the finger at is the best way of bringing people together. Global Christian cohesion is being achieved by a church that is defining itself against some representative other – in this case, a short, rather geeky gay bishop with a bit of a drink problem. He is a scapegoat straight from central casting. The sad truth is, the issue of homosexuality isn’t splitting the Anglican communion: it’s uniting it like never before…The Rt Rev Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, has brought people together: hands across the ocean, united in homophobia. It was the Episcopal church that held out longest against unholy unification. But in agreeing to these terms, they too have now bent the knee to the will of the collective bully.
Of course, much of the point of religion is the logic of unity through exclusion – but I won’t nag the Vicar about that today.
If there were more vicars like this the churches might not be empty.
So god’s view on homosexuality coincides with whatever is politically expedient for the anglican church?
Giles is notoriously nice chap, as is the amiable Simon Barrow, but what cerebral contortions must they go through, reconciling what the church demonstrably is with what they would like it to be.
This phrase is telling;’…irrespective of whether it is backed up by dodgy readings of holy texts or not.’ They are not particularly dodgy readings; Leviticus is unequivocal.
This seems to be another case where the nice, liberal, compassionate religious types lose the argument to the condemners and the smiters because the core text is actually on the side of the hard-liners.
Giles, Simon, et al are urging a humane, secular morality and seeking support from that tiny fraction of the text which can bear that interpretation.
As long as sacred texts are held as authorative, then the bullies will win the argument, because they have the stronger case. And if the texts are not authorative, upon what are the arguments based?
Come on, guys. Take the next step, you’ll always be welcome this side of the Wall.
Yeah – although I would say the issue here is not what’s politically expedient, since clearly it isn’t particularly expedient. It’s more a matter of ‘so god’s view on homosexuality coincides with liberal vicars’ intuitions about justice?’ An even more glaring example of that thought was Fraser’s remark that the prophets would be horrified by what the Episcopalian bishops have done. What?!? Jeremiah and Amos would be sympathetic to gay rights?! Really? I nearly commented on that but felt like giving the Vic an unalloyed pat on the back, so I didn’t. But it’s pretty funny.
“The struggle for the full inclusion of lesbian and gay people in the life of the church is a frontline battle in the war against global religious fascism”
Whatever about homosexuality acceptance within the High/Low Anglican Church! It will never happen in the Roman Catholic Church in the life span of the present Pope. Father Pat Buckley from Larne, near Belfast, knows all about that, very well. He is a Thorn in the Side of the Roman Catholic Church. The story of the life, career and thoughts of this rebel priest, who is also known for his compassion, particularly towards people whose marriages have ended is well recorded. He is by the Church treated abominably. The RC Church fears schisms, as much I think it fears homosexuality.
‘I burned my ecclesiastical bra years ago,’ says Fr Pat Buckley
To be fair to the liberal Christians – since all churches already pick and choose what rules do and don’t apply in the modern world they are presumably entitled to put the one about gay people in with the stuff about food.
I’ve chided Christians in the past for fetishising the proscription of homosexuality over other archaic rules in their good book, so it would hypocritical of me not to recognise their right to ignore this rule.
This doesn’t stop me pointing out that picking and choosing rather undermines the infallible revelation aspect of the Bible, but I always had that angle anyway.
ChrisPer, Mugabe is not used by Fraser to represent the Anglican church’s opinion on gays – he’s used along with other people to represent one example of global religious fascism. Fraser is obviously not using Mugabe to represent the Anglican view, since two sentences later he specifies the Anglican archbishop of Nigeria. (Mind you, I don’t know how religious Mugabe’s fascism is; Fraser may have thrown him in as an example of fascist homophobia or some such, which was careless, since he is talking about global religious fascism there. But he clearly doesn’t present Mugabe as an Anglican.)