Bates' latest article in the Guardian is bitter-sweet. Despite the seeming best efforts of certain leaders of the Church of England to spread confusion and dismay in their church, the people in the pews and the priests who serve them carry on because as:
"One senior London cleric, himself in a gay partnership, says: "We are asked to make sacrifices of relationships, of part of our lives, that are unimaginable to our heterosexual colleagues, which they would never be asked to make. There is a failure to stand up for honesty, against prejudice, that is quite horrible. I stay because I love God and love the church, but it is like being in an abusive relationship."
Once again, although I know that Archbishop Rowan Williams is the primer inter pares of the world-wide "Anglican Communion", I'd advise him to direct more of his attention to tending to his own garden. The ABC should be aware that his critical words and actions directed toward other churches in the "AC" for supporting couples who faithfully love one another, whatever their sexuality, and his weak words to church leaders who support draconian laws to punish same-sex couples who love one another, negatively affect the members, both lay and clergy, of his own Church of England. Does the ABC suffer from the delusion that the members of his own church in faithful same-sex relationships and their supporters don't take his words and actions to heart? The statement above from the senior cleric should be enough for him to shed the delusion.
The entire article is worth reading.
H/T to Doorman-Priest and Torey Lightcap at The Lead for the link to the article.
In my opinion Bates is about the best informed, most literate of the British religious commentators. Regardless of his religious belief, it was a loss when he ceased to be The Guardian's regular religious affairs columnist. This is one of his best pieces and spot-on in its observations about those in power in the Church of England. Yet again we see quotation of Andrew Brown's powerful skewering of Rowan Williams - "Under Williams, the church that marries two women who love each other is to be thrown out of the Anglican communion. The church that would jail them both for life and revile and persecute their defenders stays snugly in its bosom. Not even the archbishop's gift for obfuscation can conceal these facts forever".
ReplyDeleteI do, by the way, think that the most powerful argument for signing on to the Covenant is the potential it gives to use it in instances like the Ugandan Anglican Church's support of rabid anti-gay legislation, just as GAFCON and its paymasters hope to use it against TEC.
Is Williams so blind that he does not realize what a destructive, two-edged sword he is trying to forge?
Lapin, Bates is good. I'm glad he's back writing on religion, even if it's for only occasional pieces.
ReplyDeleteYou are in good, though small, company when you say that we should sign the Covenant to have a place at the table, however, if I had a vote, I could not vote to sign.
I suppose that Rowan sees himself in a "crucified place". I agree with Jim Naughton that what Rowan is doing is intentional and has been from the beginning. He's kept a steady course. Remember Jeffrey John.
". . . but it is like being in an abusive relationship."
ReplyDeleteYup, that about sums it up. Some days I really question my sanity for loving God's church as I do.
I did not intend to say that we should sign the Covenant Mimi, but that the best argument for doing so seems to me to be the one I stated. A "best form of defense" approach.
ReplyDeleteLapin, I see. It's true that if we're not at the table, we have no influence on any of the policies. Others suggest signing to "mark our territory".
ReplyDeleteFirst, I feel so for that reporter. Those kind of experiences with those who are intolerant can kill faith...I've seen it in my own family.
ReplyDeleteSo much hurt is done in the name of our God.