An Under-Explored Angle of the Anglican Sex Fights

I have written earlier about how it is extremely ignorant to portray the current ideological divisions within Episcopal Church, USA (ECUSA) and within the worldwide Anglican Communion as only or even primarily about homosexuality.

That being said, Faith J. H. McDonnell of IRD has a striking article in a recent issue of World magazine on "How sexual politics in the Episcopal Church affects churches in Africa."

Some highlights:

"What [a Sudanese former "Lost Boy"] did not know was that in the U.S. Episcopal Church, affirming one's sexual orientation is as much a justice and human-rights issue as genocide."

"In fact, one church's human-rights issue is creating another church's human-rights crisis. "

"Islamists had slaughtered thousands of Christians in [Bishop Josiah] Idowu-Fearon's diocese, and Christians in Nigeria are willing to die for their faith, he said. But to be undermined by Western abandonment of biblical authority is a crushing blow. "

Sudanese Anglican Archbishop Daniel "Deng Bul said Christians in Sudan 'are called infidels by the Islamic world when they hear our brothers and sisters from the Christian world talking about same-sex [relationships] to be blessed.' When Muslims link the churches in Sudan with the churches that have left biblical teaching on homosexuality, this gives them a way to say that Christians are evil: 'It will give them the upper hand to kill our people,' the archbishop warned. "

Read the whole article here.


It is probably beyond the scope of this one post to once and for all decide the important fundamental issue of whether or not there is anything inherently wrong with homosexual practice.

And of course, the realities of violence and threats of violence do not, in and of themselves, mean that the theologically liberal faction is necessarily wrong on that question. However, advocates of liberalization of sexual-ethics standards in the Anglican Communion (and for that matter, in other church bodies) can ill afford to ignore the sorts of questions raised by McDonnell's article simply because they are difficult--at least so long as such advocates value credibility as crusaders of a righteous defense of persecuted minorities.


Such questions as: Is it fair to suggest that ECUSA's leadership regards GLBT causes as no less important than that of opposing genocide? Why should it? Can ECUSA liberals offer a better response in words to the points raised by Idowu-Fearon, Deng Bul, et al other than simply ignoring these points completely or offering dismissive one-liners--either of which makes ECUSA liberals appear callously unconcerned with the extreme suffering of so many of their fellow Anglicans? What about in actions? While ECUSA GLBT advocates may not have directly committed or promoted these acts of violence against African Anglicans, what have these relatively comfortable, wealthy Westerners done thus far to alleviate any such indirect effects that may come about as a result of their actions?

In light of the above, a number of traditionalist Anglicans (within and without ECUSA) see a striking disconnect between liberal ECUSA rhetoric of bravely enduring strong persecution for the sake of a righteous cause while liberal Episcopalians in fact are generally among the top end of the world's richest 10% and free of any sort of physical violence for their stand, and the suffering, including serious threats to life and limb, that their actions impose (albeit indirectly) on African Anglicans--who, BTW are generally not among the world's richest 10%. Does this narrative have enough merit to warrant a shift in rhetoric on the part of theologically liberal Anglicans?

Turn Off Your Lights for an Hour of No-Power

Recently came across this interesting idea: Earth Hour.

Basically, it's another one of those calls for a simple, massive grassroots action whose effects would be more symbolic than effectual, though the whole idea is at least thoughtful an interesting. For the sake of the environment, the idea is that people all around the world will be turning off their lights and other power for one hour.

The time for this synchronised action is... 8:30pm - 9:30pm.

Nuts, I'm typing this within that time window.

Well, I suppose that those of us in more northern locations where the sun sets early, can get a special dispensation to take our hour-of-no-power at some other time. ANNNNNND, the web site gives the above times, but does not say in which time zone, so I do it, it will probably be around 8:30pm somewhere.

I guess the bottom line is that it would be good for all of us to just try a powerless hour some time in or around this weekend, and pick it at a time when we might normally use power. And more generally support efforts to minimize wasteful practices.

NEED MONEY FOR WEED AND T-MOBIL

Actual text on the cardboard sign of a panhandler I recently passed in Harvard Square.

I guess there's something to be said for honesty...

"That's so gay!"

Recently came across this good message online:



Video link here.

I suppose that I should say by way of disclaimer that I still fully subscribe to the old-fashioned belief that sex is too great a gift for anything but the context of marriage, and that I still acknowledge the many people, including folk I know, whose own experience has empirically refuted the idea that a homosexual orientation, at least for them, is as immutable as race. (tangential aside: the "T" part indicates that key GLBT activist leaders themselves do not regard even genetic predetermination as sufficient cause for treating one's sexuality as immutable)

But that being said, I see no reason why all of us, regardless of our positions on other specific matters regarded to the emotionally charged issue of homosexuality, cannot work to make our national discourse more civil. I certainly understand that no "side" has any sort of monopoly on mean-spirited and hateful treatment of the Other.

But it is important for those of us opposed to the sorts of far-reaching changes proposed within church and society related to homosexuality to recognize that same-sex attraction is rarely, if ever a chosen "orientation" (though it's also important to morally distinguish this from voluntary actions) , and to recognize that there are many people, preciously loved by God and created within His own image, within the gay and lesbian communities who have suffered much unnecessary hurt from callous and uncaring treatment from others within and without the church, still carrying deep-seated pain around with them, and that nothing is helped by common slurs that dehumanize and insult people. It is not enough to simply refrain from using such language ourselves; we should also have the courage to (diplomatically) speak up when others do so. The fact that it is not always easy to balance our positions on sexual morality and the definition of marriage with opposing anti-gay slurs and homophobia (a term I prefer defining much more narrowly than most everybody who talks about it) is in itself not sufficient excuse for inaction.

Yet another blog post ends with me having rambled on longer than planned. The short version would be: "Just say 'That's so lame!' instead"

UPDATE: An anonymous commenter made a good point about how my last line essentially did the same thing to physically disabled people as the original expression in question does to gay people. I do not see myself as ordinarily a fan of ultra-"political correctness" but I am a fan of respect, and there are clear logical parallels here. So I stand corrected. Perhaps I should just have to stick with "That's so stupid!" or better, yet, "That's so Emma-and-Julia!" or, per an earlier post, "That's so Punxsutawney Phil!"