Comments

Authority in the Anglican Communion is not the same as it is in the Evangelical communions or as it is in the Roman Catholic Church. Even within the Anglican Communion there are differences in how that authority is exercised.

Since the time of Elizabeth I and Richard Hooker the Anglican Communion has based authority on the three-legged stool of scripture, tradition, AND reason. In the Anglican Communion there was meant to be a wrestling with these three legs while praying at the same time for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This has helped the Anglican Communion maintain a humble, rather than a militant, orthodoxy.

Both sides in the current debate tearing at the unity of the Anglican Communion are trying to be faithful to the orthodox tradition as they see it. Both are trying to be faithful to Christ. Unfortunately, there are those on both sides whose self-righteousness revels in what they see as unfaithfulness on the other side. We do better to find a way to show the world Christian love and respect for one another's honest and faithful struggles to discern the right course on this very difficult issue.

I sympathize with Archbishop Williams wrestling with the issue and the very difficult position he is in trying to hold the communion together. May love, God's love, the greatest gift, hold us together when our theologies cannot.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams believes "that in some instances homosexuals may have relationships that are wholesome and marriage-like". And that's not even his favourite belief.

The Archbishop also believes that Anglicans are free to believe or not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that England should allow Moslem living there to freely practice Sharia law.

And please don't ask what those "instances" are, or what the Archbishop means by "homosexual having relationships that are wholesome and marriage-like".

It is about time people realize that none of this Western Anglican business has anything to do with the Bible or adherence to the truth "once for all delivered to the saints". The Archbishop has clearly demonstrated that one can be a Christian and not believe any of that Bible stuff.

It must be nice being Archbishop of Canterbury - to be able to put all that homosexual talk aside until the next Lambeth Conference, which is a mere ten years down the road.

Supporters of gay relationships kid themself if they think they are Christians.

The word "comparable" can be interpreted in a number of ways. Are gayness and marriage comparable in what way? Does he mean equal? Or, does he mean worthy of comparison. Perhaps he is hedging

I wrote letters to the The Archbishop in support of the more conservative African Churches, but he may never have seen them on account of all the mail handled by his secretarial staff (who may, or may not, be gay).

You're a Christian if you believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, not if you believe that other people's alleged sins are reasons to deny them equality.

It was wrong of the Archbishop to even use the word "homosexual." It means he's not knowledgeable about what he's talking about; but is, instead, dithering instead of educating himself and others. "Homosexual" is an obsolete, Victorian science theory, like "race," yet some people still think there is such a thing as a "race" that's not just an obsolete and dangerous social construct.

On the other hand, the Archbishop does seem to have that Golden Rule thing running in the back of his mind, which is probably why he's dithering instead of oppressing.

Thanks, Grant Abbott, for the wonderfully succinct, but very illuminating little history lesson.

"Tradition" is just that, something you don't discard lightly, as it's part of your memories, part of your personal and social identity, but which you alter or stop when it becomes irrelevant, unreasonable, too expensive, too dangerous and/or just plain dysfunctional.

Some traditions are like putting candles on a dead pine tree that's in your living room, within tipping distance to the lovely but very flammable curtains. Sure, a real candle on a real tree might please one's aesthetic and sentimental sensibilities more than an low wattage electric bulb on an artificial, fire retardant tree, but the aftermath of a house fire just is not pretty and the stuff of lovely sentimental memories.

The conservatives are essentially demanding that everyone keep an ever more dead tree in their house and illuminate it with live flames because that's the way Victorians are said to have done it in an allegedly more "moral" age. Never mind that I would be dead fifteen years now, and a very horrible death it would have been, without 20th Century science.

Not to mention that while the Victorian age was very exciting and productive age that ended slavery in the Western world, it was also extremely racist, with conservative Christians defending slavery and opposing women's suffrage. After the Civil War, they set about dismantling Reconstruction, with terrorist as well as dubious political tactics, then building Jim Crow's foul nests in trees bearing strange fruit, with the blessings of essentially the same Supreme Court that is said to have proclaimed America to be a Christian Nation.

Oops, got to get off my soap box and do errands.

Four judges legalized same sex marriage-
From San Francisco has come disparage
For, in 2000 marriage was defined
As between a man and a woman, twas outlined

What was voted on and passed by 61%
Has to be recomposed and needs our endorsement
As world history's sacred institution
Must be placed in our state's constitution

Though we feel for those in sexual exclusion
To embrace their union as marriage is delusion
For our children we cannot define this as mainstream
Though gays want acceptance and higher esteem

We've given them all the rights of marriage
And, sadly they still fight on and dare edge
To infringe on what God has ordained
And, for their small numbers society's more pained

But, what of our creator- who said, "Thou shalt not"?
And of our founding father's and of all that they fought?
We've commandments for how we should live
And, we can't grant things that aren't ours to give

I feel for those of gay circumstance
I know they want romance and an equal chance
I've counseled them for the antibody test
And, I know that their feelings are hard to rest

Please do not call this bigotry or hate
For I am concerned about our futures fate
Let's focus on family and build its foundation
For there lies the future of our good nation

Let's not redefine marriage or tear it apart
But, pray for it with every depth of our heart
And unite and fight for the noblest cause
For the purest of standards of our God's laws

People are more important than any religious ideology, period. When religious ideology is used to harm and deny the humanity of someone, a group, or a community, then it is a false belief. It is morally wrong to cling to religious dogma that has so clearly harmed countless individuals and families. Religion isn't meant to be an end in itself. It is meant to be a means to an end, with the end being molding us into a more compassionate, loving, and forgiving people and society. I don't think anti-gay people are conscious of how much pain their actions and beliefs have caused families and individuals. I believe this because most of these types of people rarely step out of themselves and try to take the perspective of another person. They've never been taught how to understand someone who is different from themselves. I think this is what has overwhelmingly occurred. However, if people are conscious of how much pain they are causing to families and individuals, then this is indeed shameful and it shouldn't be tolerated by the church or the wider society.

This I believe is the saddest moment in this whole issue. It is not so much the personal feelings of the Archbishop on the issue of homosexuality that troubles me it is his position on the inerrant nature of Scripture. Whatever, his personal feelings may be, homosexuality is declared to be wrong by God's Word. He accepted the position of Archbishop to uphold and defend the inerrant nature of God's Word, if he is not able to do this, he should step down. His attempt to circumvent the issue has given support to those who dare to call themselves Christians but say that they don't have to believe what the Bible. If they are not following Christ in upholding God's Word, they are not Christians. They may be people who like to go to church or to gather with Christians but they are not Christians.