tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8443447842611499359.post7252776437746705253..comments2023-09-13T13:47:47.106+01:00Comments on The Changing Attitude Blog: LGBT Anglican Coalition writes to Archbishop of Canterbury about sexuality, celibacy and secrecyAlexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09163737925142519555noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8443447842611499359.post-75117647187900466362010-10-13T09:42:31.746+01:002010-10-13T09:42:31.746+01:00Sister Rosemary for Archbishop of Canterbury? She...Sister Rosemary for Archbishop of Canterbury? She sounds like an extraordinarily sensible person. <br /><br />I don't quite get ABC's logic: if he sees himself as an even handed listener in these debates, why does he feel able to put his 'thumbs on the scales' in favour of women bishops, but not so on gay equality? It doesn't add up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8443447842611499359.post-44464152567677869402010-10-12T16:41:08.260+01:002010-10-12T16:41:08.260+01:00I agree with Elizabeth's comments, but I fear...I agree with Elizabeth's comments, but I fear that if ++Rowan moves in the direction of "tough love" it will once again be the LGBT community that gets the dirty end of the stick. The simple fact is that Rowan, lovely, holy and thoughtful man though he is, is at heart a coward and is far more afraid of the "sabre rattlers" in the Anglican Communion than of those of us who belong to the LGBT Christian community. This is why he has acted contrary to his own past words and writings, having either changed his mind on the subject or having abandoned truth and integrity in the interests of placating those who threaten him most. He has signed up to what Richard Holloway succintly described as "The Caiphactic principle" and it is hard to imagine him changing course now. LGBT Christians have been betrayed in the interests of a superficial church unity. For Rowan, sacrificing us is the lesser of two evils, and I don't think we can ever expect much from him now.Trevor Thurston-Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8443447842611499359.post-85529384437752916352010-10-12T12:11:52.771+01:002010-10-12T12:11:52.771+01:00An earlier blog stated “ +Rowan is a Christian lea...An earlier blog stated “ +Rowan is a Christian leader of immense dignity, emotional and intellectual maturity, wisdom, grace, tenderness and love and has endured unbearable pain and anguish for most of the eight years he has been Archbishop.” This is so true and probably the main reason why this desperately painful issue is dragging on. But in his spirit of deep pastoral sensitivity, wanting to meet the needs and wishes of all, +Rowan is in fact procrastinating and prolonging his own agony.<br />I am put in mind of a situation in a parish church I once attended – nothing to do with gender or sexuality – but it demonstrated how a vicar’s ‘no nonsense’ management skills resolved disagreement among his congregation. When the new Communion rites (A and B) were introduced in the distant days of the ASB, there was much arguing over which to use. In the end it was a compromise: they would alternate them. This of course led to much confusion, stumbling over words, and a weekly cacophony of unintentionally hybrid prayers. A new vicar arrived. He knew what had to be done, took the bull by the horns and did it: from now on Rite A only. There may have been a few complaints, but church life quickly seemed to settle down again very harmoniously.<br />This may be a simplistic and naïve analogy, but my point is that if +Rowan were to take a few risks in the practice of ‘tough love’, after the inevitable initial fallout, life in the Anglican Communion might well settle down again more quickly than expected. Unlike the Pope, +Rowan does not claim infallibility, but although ‘primus inter pares’ among other bishops, he is still our leader, and I personally accept his authority to follow his conscience and God’s will as he discerns it. Moreover, I believe that if Jeffrey John had not been advised to withdraw from the Reading appointment in 2002, we would be a lot further on than we are at the moment.Elizabth Wickensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8443447842611499359.post-85006217991965769022010-10-12T12:10:24.871+01:002010-10-12T12:10:24.871+01:00An earlier blog stated “ +Rowan is a Christian lea...An earlier blog stated “ +Rowan is a Christian leader of immense dignity, emotional and intellectual maturity, wisdom, grace, tenderness and love and has endured unbearable pain and anguish for most of the eight years he has been Archbishop.” This is so true and probably the main reason why this desperately painful issue is dragging on. But in his spirit of deep pastoral sensitivity, wanting to meet the needs and wishes of all, +Rowan is in fact procrastinating and prolonging his own agony.<br />I am put in mind of a situation in a parish church I once attended – nothing to do with gender or sexuality – but it demonstrated how a vicar’s ‘no nonsense’ management skills resolved disagreement among his congregation. When the new Communion rites (A and B) were introduced in the distant days of the ASB, there was much arguing over which to use. In the end it was a compromise: they would alternate them. This of course led to much confusion, stumbling over words, and a weekly cacophony of unintentionally hybrid prayers. A new vicar arrived. He knew what had to be done, took the bull by the horns and did it: from now on Rite A only. There may have been a few complaints, but church life quickly seemed to settle down again very harmoniously.<br />This may be a simplistic and naïve analogy, but my point is that if +Rowan were to take a few risks in the practice of ‘tough love’, after the inevitable initial fallout, life in the Anglican Communion might well settle down again more quickly than expected. Unlike the Pope, +Rowan does not claim infallibility, but although ‘primus inter pares’ among other bishops, he is still our leader, and I personally accept his authority to follow his conscience and God’s will as he discerns it. Moreover, I believe that if Jeffrey John had not been advised to withdraw from the Reading appointment in 2002, we would be a lot further on than we are at the moment.Elizabeth Wickensnoreply@blogger.com