So what exactly is ''freedom and what of our 'rights'? Rowan has, in a typically intelligent manner addressed these issues before Synod. If my freedom impinges on the rights of others (or vv) where do we draw a line? Here's a splurge that Rowan has provoked:
If a body decide that something is out of line with their 'core values' then they should have the right to make decisions as to whether or not such an area, or person supporting this area of difference, is brought into that body. Consider a vegetarian organisation being forced to employ a meat-eater. People I've spoken to say that that would be ridiculous and yet the government wishes to enforce parallels of this on religious organistaions and people appear to be happy about it.
As Rowan rightly says, the whole Equality Bill debate wasn't about clergy and teachers or homosexuality and rights but is about consistency and integrity. I was going to say that you wouldn't find people opposed to infant baptism going for ordination but experience has taught me that we do and funnier still, they get ordained too! It's interesting that common tenure creeps in and hints that there might just be an element regarding 'identifying posts' that might worry some of those who see the spectre of mind control and handcuffing and 'compliance', but more of that another time.
We do have a right to define what 'belonging' means. The problem here is that this will almost certainly exclude some and leave them feeling rejected but just as people have the right to choose, so too do groups of people and this is what we're seeing with the whole TEC situation. They can choose and choose to exist outside of the main orbit of orthodox Christianity. There will be areas of mutual agreement and the like but they will be two distinct bodies - so why are we fighting? Because their choice excludes others - a reality that they don't seem bothered with as it's all about them and not others perhaps?
The right to choose and define remains with the organisation (religious or otherwise) and must continue to do so just as I retain the right to choose and makes decisions for myself. My right to be heterosexual and decide that homosexuality is not for me and to decide also that, as I understand it, such lifestyle is extra-Biblical and therefore not quite right in a Christian context is 'my right'. Now although I have that position, I have to say that I think that a person has the right to make their own choices (even what others might consider 'bad choices') and enjoy the benefits (or penalties) for their choices. In fact, when it comes to making choices and not being pilloried or attacked for them, I would say that the Christian position is to respect the civil liberties of all (regardless) and even fight for them. This does not mean proselytising or supporting the acts that others engage in, but does mean that where bias and prejudice exist, we will oppose it and although others will claim I am condoning acts I have to say that I a merely refusing to condemn, for I have seen where this road leads.
I stand totally opposed to what is happening in Uganda and deplore the apparent meddling of some of the far right groups (who to be honest I see as a cancer within the Church). I do not want the state to attempt legislate on what can be believed but I don't want some of those who consider themselves to be the spokesmen for God regarding moral rectitude to peddle their wares either, for in both I see acts and thinking that deny the Gospel of Christ. The must be boundaries that are not crossed and attitudes that cannot be enforced for the 'good of others'.
In the area of assisted suicide I think the Church has a clear duty to stand opposed to it and to proclaim the reality that a quality of life can be found where many would wish to see life ended so that they can remove suffering. This is pure and absolute bunkum. So you can't kick a rugger ball or walk on grass - so what? There's a great deal more to the human spirit than this and to run away from this world is to deny that - and so we must make our stand. Life is not always pretty, not always painless and not always fun - but is it still life!
Being gay is a minority sport and yet people speak as if it's a majority activity. the tail wishes to wag the dog and the same goes for assisted suicide. Those who speak for both are passionate and demand that all embrace and applaud their choices. The truth is that if we stand for people's right to choose, we must also be standing for people to make different choices and this is where I see it being important that we make provision for those 'FAITHFUL' (how on earth did the synod say that they were 'unfaithful ' and what a shame for those who voted in favour) Anglican priests and congregation members who are troubled by the issue of women's ordination and consecration. To refuse this is to institutionally deny the right to freedom of choice and by it, the whole position of the Equality Bill debate falls.
To allow one group's freedom such that another find themselves marginalised or even placed in danger (as Rowan's Malaysian example demonstrates) is not about redressing past hurst. We don't do revenge and we don't go in for vindictiveness (actually we appear to do both, but we shouldn't!). As ever I'd like 'Anglican' to be the place where orthodoxy is to be found and 'Episcopalian' to be the place where a Christian liberalism resides - tow bodies in relationship but not assuming they are the same. To speak of restraint now is a little hollow - for looking at TEC there has been very little of it and whilst I agree that people need to be heard, some are obviously being more heard than others and the act outweighs the listening every time!
To be three-dimensional we need to have depth and this depth must allow people to have their choices and to maintain their own theological integrity. Rowan is right when he says that this is not about 'winning' but is about maintaining the sanctity of our neighbours. Not about self or selfish desires (sadly, something I see so much of) but about obedience to Scripture, Reason and Tradition and the care of the weaker members of our family.
An amazingly stimulating speech and nothing less that I would expect from a man who is obviously one of the most intelligent ABCs we've probably ever had. But will people hear what they wnat to hear in this (or not hear what they wanted) and disregard the rest? The press will no doubt induce spin and others will claim he's supporting homosexuality and the ejection of the high church types - but read what he says for this is not so!
No comments:
Post a Comment