Letters
from 25 to 2 May 2004
If you'd
like to
write a letter of your own, click here.
On holiday? Take in
service.
LAST
AUGUST MY DAUGHTER AND I went
to London and were extremely fortunate to be able to attend a Sunday
service at Westminster Abbey. And in the evening I went to Evensong.
Both services were absolutely fantastic. To be
sitting in Westminster Abbey with my teenage daughter was out of
this world
special. The morning service was so relaxing,
beautiful, and the sermon was excellent. Evensong was wonderful
too. It was like time had stood still. The music was, of course, outstanding,
and I felt
at home. (My dad is a priest and I am an organist, so I grew up
learning Anglican music.) The clergy, staff,
and the parishioners were welcoming and showed us how really glad
they were to have us there. I came away with the feeling that this
Abbey has seen
so many hard times, religious fights, various kings and queens
-- and it endures. The Church will endure, in spite of what goes on.
I
encourage anyone who is traveling to take time out and attend services
wherever you are.
Anne Bay
Long Beach, California, USA
FIFIhb@aol.com
29 April 2004
Rippling on...
WHAT A LOVELY message
last week! Small things are important.
Sandra Laythorpe
St Boniface (middle of the road Anglican)
Chandlers Ford, England, UNITED KINGDOM
28 April 2004
Characterising positions
fairly
THREE
CHEERS FOR Mr. Thomas Peters (Letters,
19 April), for reminding us that 'words have consequences,' and that "Christian
charity requires us to characterize the position of those with whom
we disagree with accuracy and integrity.' Too often, conservatives
and liberals trying to discuss issues related to the present Anglican
quasi-schism succeed only in 'talking past each other,' because they
cannot, or will not,
paraphrase each other's positions accurately. Mr. Peters correctly
points out that 'conservative Anglicans do not argue that gays should
be condemned.'
Unfortunately,
while I applaud his efforts, I'm afraid Mr. Peters still has not accurately
summarized the position of the conservatives (with whom, in this case,
I happen to agree). It is not true that conservatives argue that non-celibate
gays should not be ordained. A gay man can marry a woman and beget children
by her, in which case he is non-celibate. Thus, Bp. V. Gene Robinson
(assuming that he is the biological father of his children, and that they
were begotten by the usual method) was, even prior to his divorce, a non-celibate
gay man, and the fact that he was a priest did not bother conservatives at
all. So, if gayness and celibacy and ordination are not the crux of the matter,
what is? In a word: sodomy. Quite simply, conservatives believe that sodomy
is a sin, and liberals do not. Conservatives are not arguing that gay persons
should be excluded from the Church; conversely, liberals are not arguing
that obdurately impenitent sinners should be included. The real question
at issue is whether or not sodomy is of itself sinful. It would help
tremendously in discussing this controversy if both sides could stay focused
on this question.
By the way, how is
it that Anglicans Online, while thanking Mr. Peters for his comment (19 April),
and stating, 'We'll try to do better,' nevertheless reports, in one of its
news stories for 23 April, that 'the Most Revd. George Cary has sided with
the Colorado Springs Anglican Communion Institute to condemn gay clergy'?
Although I read the linked article twice, I could find no mention of any
condemnation of gay persons, whether clergy or otherwise.
David Plitnik
Church of Holy Love
Saitama City, Japan
2 May 2004
Earlier
letters
We launched our 'Letters
to AO' section on 11 May 2003. All of our letters are in our
archives.
|
