The
Anglican Church, Bishops and Buggery
17th Aug 2003 (see update 26 Feb 2005 down
the page)
The confusion
that is evident at the moment in religious circles is a perfect example
of the current state of society in what we call the Western World,
caused by the removal of traditional sources of authority from their
privileged position and status. This is the result of the inevitable
opening up of horizons and opportunities in those countries that have
benefited from the half century of peace and prosperity and democratic
government. This has allowed a level of financial security (supposed,
but in most cases not as real or sustainable as is supposed) to a
majority of the population which has given them the courage to
challenge
the orthodoxy that governs their profession, their business, their
education, their culture and, yes, their religion.
It is not a good
or bad thing, it is just a FACT. Responsibility for decisions that
affect the future of humanity was always bound to be progressively
shared by a wider public with the passage of time. However, at the
critical juncture where these challenges are taking place we have also
had the development of media and multimedia and huge piles of cash
which
have been associated, as a result, with 'clelebrity', due to the
commercial value of images and data that can reach billions of the
purchasing public. The major media coporations now have the power to
expose any authority to the judgement of the market place of public
opinion. They also have the power, in an age where education in
philosophy, citizenship and ethics has to some extent passed by a large
part of the community, to inform that opinion. That is a situation that
is wide open for any movement that wants to make a sensational bid for
a
cultural revolution to take it on the flood tide.
That is why a
controversial issue that has been ignored for ages has now come to the
boil. Those who believe that homosexuality, which has been known to
exist amongst members of the clergy just as it does amongst the rest of
the population, should not be a barrier to the highest offices of the
church believe that they can take their case to the public, through the
media. By using the commonly held theory that tolerance and forgiveness
are the fundamentals of Christianity, and that discrimination against
homosexuals is now uncceptable, they believe that their case is solid.
What they are
overlooking is that selection for high office in any voluntary
organisation (and the Anglican Church is such) is always based on right
and proper descrimination. The attributes required are not those that
are applied to ordinary members. Those chosen must be exceptional and
one quality is essential: they should be acceptable to almost all of
the
members. While no members are opposed to heterosexual bishops, a great
many are oposed to homosexual bishops on the grounds that they think
that buggery is a perversion of natural sexual instincts which puts at
risk the stability and security of normal relationships between male
adults and, more significantly, between male adults and male children.
There is no need
to decide at this point if this is right or wrong, it is sufficient to
realise that many members of the Anglican Communion hold this view, not
least because it has been held for two thousand years by the Christian
churches and for even longer by most other religions. So, even if we
now
think differently there is no need to choose bishops from any minority
or even majority sexual persuasion if they are fundamentally
unacceptable to a great many members on a matter of principle. In the
Anglican Communion, there is no objection to heterosexual bishops at
all. On the other hand anyone making a career in the clergy must have
known from the outset that they would not become an openly homosexual
bishop without splitting their church. A man who puts his career before
the church is not, in most people's eyes, bishop material.There are
plenty of other jobs a man can do, and plenty of more modest positions
in the church they can serve, without giving offence. Who needs these
prima donnas?
There is no need
to have any particular religious belief to reach the above conclusion,
it is just a matter of logic and the science of management.
UPDATE
FEB 26th 2005
Anglican
leaders have asked the US and Canadian
Churches to withdraw from a key council temporarily because of their
stance on homosexuality.
They want the North American Churches to "consider their
place within the Anglican Communion", a statement said.
The decision now
taken by the Anglican Communion is also to create a separate forum
within which church leaders can discuss the arguments which up till now
have taken place largely via the media, by the prima donnas rather than
the serious theologians. To keep the Anglican Communion united, each
side has to understand the other. At the moment they are far from this
position.
Those who are
against the ordaining of practising homosexuals base their case on
precedent, on tradition, on their interpretation of scripture. All of
the above could be set aside if there was a good reason, but they are
unable to find a convincing one They accept homosexuality as a fact,
they do not condemn, but they do not see an openly practising
homosexual as someone who has the qualifications as a senior and
trusted mentor in ethics, morals and customs for the children of
Christian heterosexuals. They could be wrong, of course, but those who
are so dependent on homosexual behaviour as to have to indulge openly
and advocate it are unlikely to appeal to parents who are perhaps
hoping their children would not be taken down that road. Since
homosexuals will not be having children of their own (I am taking them
at their word that this is a medical condition not an arbitrary choice)
they will not be concerned about the fate of the next generation in the
same personal way. They may even consider it an option they might
recommend. This issue has become more acute due to recent revelations
about child abuse, where it has not been so much a question of the
recommendation of options as the abuse of the innocent and unwilling.
The fact that there have been homosexuals amongst the clergy who did
not practise as adults or abuse.children is not an argument against,
but for the status quo in an era where abuse is less easily concealed.
This would seem
to indicate that there will have to be a church in most places for
those who, while in no way condemning homosexuals, do not want them as
important role models or mentors for the young any more than they would
want an alcoholic GP, however charming, intelligent or medically
qualified he might be.
On the other
side we appear to have an Anglican culture where gays have found their
home rather as in the theatre. They clearly have their own needs to be
loved and between them have built up a community of clergy of the same
ilk, where it is the careers of those within the church that take
precedent.
Personally I
think it is better to split, so that the Christian public can have the
option of choice, and the future will decide if one or both are
successful and if at a later date the split is resolved. In the
meantime, the points I have raised above can be discussed seriously by
educated and compassionate church leaders in private, away from the
oxygen of publicity that feeds the the theatrical performers. Peronally
I have always though that since genuine homosexuals, now free to be
such, do not have children, the future is none of their business as
long as they are treated with respect, if they deserve it, in the
present.