Episcopal Church USA elects Gay Bishop, schism imminent?

[Shi Huangdi]

Well, it's official now. Gene Robinson has been approved by the House of Bishops and is now officially ECUSA's first open and practising homosexual bishop. Already conservative Anglicans in the USA are outraged. The Anglican churches in the developing world, Africa and Asia, are particularly furious with this development and are lashing out at what they call the immoral west. There is going to be significant pressure on the Archbishop of Canterbury to declare the Commmunion with ECUSA "broken" or impaired. I suppose there are three possibilities of schism here- we'll have to see if Conservatives in the US will break up and try to form their own Anglican Church, whether ECUSA will end up out of the Anglican Communion, or a dramatic option. That dramatic option would be if Canterbury refuses to take any negative action against this development, the developing world may walk out and form a new Church. This could result in two worldwide Churches- a liberal one led from England and a Conservative one led from Nigeria.

[TheStinger]

The Archbishop of cantebury should have the guts to support this.

Apparently conservatives within the anglican church used to think opponents of salvery would lead to schism as scriputure allowed it

[Shi Huangdi]

"The Archbishop of cantebury should have the guts to support this."

I don't know much about Rowan Williams, do you think he will support this? I think he is supposed to be pretty liberal, but the news says he is also very concerned with the unity of the Anglican Communion.



Anyway, On a semi-related note, apparently in spite of the avlanch of victories for gay rights we have seen lately, we are now seeing some backlash.

From foxnews:

"In the most recent poll, conducted July 25 through July 27, 48 percent of respondents said homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal, compared to a record high of 60 percent in May. When asked if homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle, 54 percent agreed in May, but only 46 percent said so in July.

On the issue of giving same-sex couples the right to enter into civil unions, 40 percent in July said they should, compared with 49 percent two months ago."

[Shi Huangdi]

And more news in this regard. ECUSA has now officialy passed a measure alllowing local dioceses to perform blessings of homosexual unions.

[Dr Strangelove]

The conservative dioceses in Africa and Asia will come to their senses when they realise that PECUSA contributes the lion's share of the Anglican Communion's funding. About one-quarter of the American bishops have sent a petition to the Anglican Communion asking for intervention. If they're willing to go through official channels then I doubt that they're ready to break away. If the Anglican Communion recognises the minority groups demands then they risk forcing the main body of PECUSA to leave the AC, and if that happens many of those conservative dioceses in Africa and Asia will find themselves without funding. I'm pretty sure that the Archbishop is well aware of the situation. You also have to consider that the CoE is after all under the control of Parliament. Does Tony Blair want to have himself associated with an incident of gay bashing?

BTW, I already started a thread on this subject.

[Spiffor]

I don't understand the ruckus. Isn't the whole point of the Anglican Church to allow powerful ones to have sex with whomever they want ?

[Q Classic]

i want to know if anybody has the balls to do that.

they threatened it when the women were allowed to be ordained... now with this gay spat, i want to see if any are willing to put their nuts on the line over this matter.

[C0ckney]

rowan williams has been saying that the churches in the developing world shouldn't rush into judgement and should 'think long and hard' about this issue.

from a personal point of view, i would think (and hope) that there are more pressing issues facing the church today and that more energy should be channeled into addressing things falling attendences and less into arguements about things like this.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Isn't the whole point of the Anglican Church to allow powerful ones to have sex with whomever they want ?

I thought that was Catholics/politicians/pro-athletes?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The conservative dioceses in Africa and Asia will come to their senses when they realise that PECUSA contributes the lion's share of the Anglican Communion's funding. .

so does this mean PECUSA is comfortable with the exercise of US "hard power"?

[TheStinger]

The C of E is not controlled by parliament, Tony Balir has the final say ont he appointment of the Archbishop of cantebury but other than that he can't do anything.

[FrustratedPoet]

Tony Balir has the final say ont he appointment of the Archbishop of cantebury but other than that he can't do anything.

Really? I thought that was the Queen, since she's the head of the church. Although I suppose she always does what ever the PM tells her to anyway.

[CerberusIV]

I doubt if there is going to be a schism. This is a perfect opportunity for Anglican leaders and activists worldwide to have a long drawn out argument, get all hot under the collar, describe each other as having abandoned the scriptures and then quietly forget about the issue. Just the latest in a long line of religious debates.

After all, what better excuse for denouncing someone else in an attempt to garner publicity and power. For Anglicans, denouncing Catholics is boring and out of date, denouncing Muslims is dangerous because they fight back so denouncing other protestants is safest and most effective.

[TheStinger]

The Prime minister makes the appointment under royal perogative.

Parliament is sovreign.

The only time the time the queen personally would have to make a decsion would be in a hung parliament where no one could form a majority and was unable to cobble a pact together to run a minority govt. She would then have to appoint a PM who would presumbly carry on until they lost a vote of no confidence thus triggering fresh elections. She would almost certianly take advice though from the current PM

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
I doubt if there is going to be a schism. This is a perfect opportunity for Anglican leaders and activists worldwide to have a long drawn out argument, get all hot under the collar, describe each other as having abandoned the scriptures and then quietly forget about the issue. Just the latest in a long line of religious debates.

After all, what better excuse for denouncing someone else in an attempt to garner publicity and power. For Anglicans, denouncing Catholics is boring and out of date, denouncing Muslims is dangerous because they fight back so denouncing other protestants is safest and most effective.

Anglicans are far closer to catholics than any other protestant religion, indeed you would be hard pushed to tell the difference between some anglican services and catholic services.

Some Anglicans don't like to be called protestant.