Pulling Out

Well, there's more news out of the Worldwide Anglican Communion.

LONDON, England (AP) -- The U.S. Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have withdrawn from a key body of the global Anglican Communion under pressure from conservative church leaders horrified by the election of a gay bishop in the United States and the blessing of same-sex unions in the two countries.

Though the suspension of the two churches was said to be temporary, it marked the first formal split in the communion over the explosive issues of sexuality and biblical authority.

A statement from the 35 Anglican primates, which also summoned the two churches to explain their thinking on gay issues at another Anglican meeting in June, was issued a day earlier than planned, following a week of meetings in Northern Ireland by leaders of the national churches.

The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Frank T. Griswold, said the debate would continue and that his fellow church leaders had made room "for a wide variety of perspectives."

This "wide variety of perspectives" will no doubt exclude the one perspective that should actually matter to someone who calls themself a Christian: the biblical perspective.

The money shot?

The statement said the two churches were withdrawing from the Anglican Consultative Council, a key body for contact among the national churches, at least until 2008.

"In the meantime, we ask our fellow primates to use their best influence to persuade their brothers and sisters to exercise a moratorium on public rites of blessing for same-sex unions and on the consecration of any bishop living in a sexual relationship outside Christian marriage," the statement said.

Griswold issued a brief statement stressing that discussions were continuing.

"These days have not been easy for any of us and the communique reflects a great deal of prayer and the strong desire to find a way forward as a communion in the midst of deep differences which have been brought into sharp relief around the subject of homosexuality," Griswold said.

I know, it's a long money shot, but compare the two statements. On the side of the conservative leaders, you have a plain and simple criticism of any bishop living a homosexual lifestyle, outside of Christian marriage. Instead of offering a Biblical response, the pro-gay folks come back with some nonsense about "difficult days" and "deep differences."

I've posted about this before, but I may as well say it again. I consider myself an "Anglican-in-Exile." I went to an Episcopal church for a little over a year, and enjoyed the people, enjoyed the fact that the Anglican church embraces people of different backgrounds and different views. Then this issue with Gene Robinson came up, and I kept going for a while, but eventually I decided that that issue and several others were grounds for discontinuing my affiliation.

Personally, I have nothing against gays. I've known a few, I've gotten along well with most of them, no problem. You're a guy who's in love with another guy, and the two of you want to have all sorts of kinky gay sex? Yeah, great, have at it, I totally disagree with it, but that's your right. If I'm not involved, and if I don't have to pay for irresponsible sexual behavior (example), then yeah, go right ahead. It's the same standard I have for heterosexuals: your sexual lives shouldn't interfere with my life, mine shouldn't interfere with yours, end of story.

The Bible is very clear, in both Old and New Testaments, about the issue of homosexuality. It's condemned in very plain language. You're a homosexual who claims to be a Christian? Well, yeah, you can be both, but in order to be both, you have to acknowledge that homosexual behavior is sinful according to the Bible, repent of your transgression, and endeavour to discontinue the behavior. Don't believe that the Bible's authoritative on the issue? Then you're not a Christian; a Christian accepts the Bible as God's word and abides by it. To claim to be a Christian while simultaneously claiming that you've got it right and the Bible's got it wrong precludes one from being a Christian.

This gets especially ridiculous when an openly homosexual individual decides that they want to become a member of the clergy. Clergy are supposed to be practically beyond reproach, and there is no room for clergy to openly and willfully disobey the clear directives of scripture. Gene Robinson shouldn't have been ordained as a deacon, and probably shouldn't have been allowed to even teach Sunday school, if he was openly homosexual.

As for "same-sex marriage," it's a myth. Marriage is a religious institution, and in all cultures throughout history, it has been a religious institution between a man and a woman. You want same-sex unions? I don't much care for the idea, but insofar as it doesn't screw with the institution of marriage (and yes, the word itself is important; you can't just expect to redefine a word based on your own convenience), I don't have a reasonable argument against it.

Don't get me wrong, folks. I am not anti-gay. I don't "hate faggots" or think that "women are dykes because they've never gotten a good time from the right guy." There is a profound difference between how homosexuality should be treated by society as a whole, and how homosexuality should exist within the confines of a church built on Judeo-Christian scripture, history, and tradition. Society changes; scripture, history, and tradition does not.

So, until the American church (well, beyond groups like the Anglican Mission in America and others) comes to its senses and rejoins orthodox Christendom, they can keep missing out on my weekly contribution. When one adjusts for the approximate rate at which I missed church when I was a regular, that's probably added up to the better part of $350.00 in missed revenue from me alone by now, and I'm not alone.