h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This question was asked, in much more inflammatory terms, once already in this forum. The question was hidden for its offensive language. I'm still interested in the answer, though, and since the person who posted it originally probably isn't capable of phrasing it acceptably, I thought I'd have a go.

The Anglican church has recently taken steps which would appear to run counter to the teachings of the Bible on which it is based. It allows women to become priests, allows homosexuals to become priests, and now even has ordained a practicing homosexual as a bishop.

The question is this: how do these actions affect your view of the Anglican church?

Some possible answers [none of these represent my view, I'm merely giving examples of the sorts of things I expect people to say]:
- it's an admirable adaptation to modern society by a church showing proper compassion for its flock
- it's a pathetic attempt by a dying superstition to hang to as many as possible of the dwindling number of believers
- it's indicative of the demonic nature of the Anglican church that it endorses abomination.

Ideally, I'd like your answer in two parts:
1. What your starting point was with the Anglican church: believer, opponent, disinterested observer.
2. How has your opinion changed, if at all, due to recent developments re: ordaining women and homosexuals.

I look forward to your replies. Thank you.

Disinterested observer:

I can't see how women priests are contrary to the teachings of the Bible. I don't think Christ said that priests had to be men. He just chose a load of men. He also chose a load of people who lived in Judaea, but no-one nowadays would think you have to be from Judaea to be a priest.

Homosexuality is different. I think that it was specifically considered to be sinful in the Bible. But then, there are lots of contradictions in the Bible, so the Anglicans may be just following their own interpretation.

I'd rate them as "progressive" rather than hypocrites.

It seems to me a refreshing progression into the modern world and step out of the dark ages. Finally there's an archbishop of Cantebury with the common sense to think for himself and realise that the bible isn't meant to be taken literally in each and every context and that human judgement should be used. Well done Rowan

Disinterested observer.

It hasn't really changed my opinion of the church very much, as neither the ordination of women or homosexuals is a big issue for me personally.

I'm quite impressed by the current Archbishop of Canterbury, who I'd rate as a progressive with an interest in how ethical principles can be applied in the context of modern society. The church as a whole though can't be neatly pigeonholed in any of the three categories; at least some of its own members would probably go for the demonic option.

Noggin

When I became a choirboy thirty years ago it was in an Anglican church. The area where I lived was predominantly Roman Catholic and unless you knew the people you couldn't tell by their behaviour who was in which religion. The Anglican Church however, has always been more progressive and less dogmatic than the Church of Rome. It would be wrong to band all Christian movements under one banner - they are very different. For example, being openly gay was a tough thing even for non-Church members back then but in my Church it was not oppressive. Our head choirboy is now a Vicar - single, very camp and secretly very gay. Maybe the new thinking of the Anglican Church will help churchgoers come to terms with him, after all he has obviously come to terms with them.

Disinterested observer.

I'd say my opinion hasn't changed a lot except to think they have become more progressive and are attempting to live in the real and present world.

Old testament viewpoints about homosexuals and women were not written in stone as commandments, so it makes sense that these views could change within the Church without this being considered hypocritical.

az

Disinterested Observer/Occasional Opponent (depending on who's trying to 'save' me this week).

It's nice to see a church admitting that sex and sexuality is not as important as faith and an ability to minister to the needs of a congregation. Given the issues facing the Church of Rome, it seems like a smart move for the Anglican church to step away from condemnation and move to acceptance.

1. Disinterested Oberver

2. Still disinterested but mildly amused by the contortions and spasms the church is going through as various factions try to pull it in different directions. I have a fair amount of respect for Rowan Williams, who seems like a decent chap with a sharper brain than others.

1. Disinterested Observer

2. Still disinterested but mildly amused by the contortions and spasms the church is going through as various factions try to pull it in different directions. I have a fair amount of respect for Rowan Williams, who seems like a decent chap with a sharper brain than others.

The rift as regards gay priests/bishops is an interesting one. The main opposition seems to be coming from Africa - who are threatening to split the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church in Africa is in fact the fastest growing church in the world and it is gaining most of its converts from young women, a group I would have thought would have been more sympathetic to the rights of 'oppressed' individuals. Or is this a case of reactionary old men ruling the roost?

1. Disinterested observer

2. Thinks the progress is great, there is no law against a religious organisation moving with the times. It needs to remain relevant in a modern world, if it wishes to retain any of its believers.

1. Active and vociferous opponent, full-time apostate and druid.

2. My opinion of this tired old institution has not changed one jot or tittle.

It amuses me to watch the adherents of this vicious middle-eastern cult consume each other in a blather of platitudes and name-calling.

I just hope they get it over with quickly so that we druids can get on with healing the land, without the all the distraction of men in frocks desperately trying to be holier than each other.

Bright and hopeful blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\.

A member - I watch the convulsions from outside, I am not active at the moment. I think it's neither a sign of being progressive, or hypocritical - just confused. The Bible is without any doubt, opposed to homosexuality. That's where it stands. Homosexuals don't have to join the Anglican or *any* church, and I would assume that 99% of them don't want to - except perhaps to try to change (or subvert?) it. Which verb you choose depends on your p.o.v...

Thanks to all who have contributed thoughtful answers.

Thanks also to Della, who is at least consistent in her inability to string a sentence together.

"A member - I watch the convulsions from outside"

Seven words in, and you're contradicting yourself. Are you a member of the Anglican church, or are you outside it? Everyone else so far has managed to answer this desperately simple question clearly in one or two words. And you call *others* confused?

Also, you have apparently misunderstood the question. The question was NOT about homosexuality, homosexuals, what church they join or why. The question was about how the recent actions of the Anglican church have affected your opinion of it.

Given that you are unable to say clearly whether you're in the church or an outsider, I suppose it's hardly suprising that you've decided to answer a different question than the one that was asked. Do feel free to try again if you think you understand the question now. Thank you.

Oh, as expected I have drawn fire from Member, who is always consistent in *his* ability to express fear and loathing.
What part of "I am not active" did you not understand? I am a member, I have not quit, but I am not currently attending, and haven't for some time. Simple - and I thought you *wanted* things kept simple?
I also explained how the recent actions of the Anglican church have affected my opinion - in my view, the Anglican church is neither progressive nor hypocritical, but confused. It is confused because it is going against its clear tradition and scriptural teaching, for the sake of including people who if *they* were consistent would not want to belong! (It is also my belief that 95% don't want to, except for purposes of being what I believe are called "change agents'")
I already said this in slightly different words. Do I have to repeat the whole thing over again? (Well,Member, you do always seem to have had a problem understanding people you disagree with...)

Member, I feel you are being offensive to Della, who has said that she is a member, but outside because she has not been practicing recently. If you don't understand what she writes you should not assume it is stupidity on her part.

Oh, BTW, "different... than"? That's just wrong on so many levels...

Thank you, Gnomon... (Was that a simulpost?)

Yes.

"you do always seem to have had a problem understanding people you disagree with"

Another possible explanation for this is that some of the people I disagree with are inarticulate to the point of incomprehensibility.

Thanks, however, for your view in any case.

Any more?