“Sole test of Orthodoxy”

Last week a series of letters were released in which the Archbishop of Canterbury, discussed his personal views on the morality of same-sex relationships. We had coverage here, here and here.

In the correspondance, there’s one little point made by the Archbishop that didn’t garner much attention.

As reported on “Wales Online

In his correspondence with Dr Pitt, Dr Williams wrote of his regret that the acceptance or otherwise of homosexuality had become “very much politicised” and was treated by many as “the sole or primary marker of Christian orthodoxy”.

What say you good readers? Is this true? Has the acceptance or rejection of same-sex blessings become the fault line that has become the single test of where one stands with respect to the historic faith?

Posted by

Comment Policy
Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted. We also ask that you limit your comments to no more than four comments per story per day.

  1. Simon Sarmiento

    I don’t understand why you equate “same-sex blessings” with “homosexuality”.

    The fault line is surely more generic than the former.

  2. That’s quite true, Simon, but I think it’s beside the point. One can “accept homosexuality” or not, just as one can “accept” sunshine or (presumably) not, but it is a characteristic of some human beings whether one “accepts” that fact or not.

    Nick’s question is whether the acceptance or rejection of same-sex blessings (and by extension, the ordination of persons who are in same-sex committed relationships) has become a “sole test of orthodoxy.” One would certainly not think it would be. Alas, there seem to be a great number of folks who are determined to make it such.

    I commented on this a few weeks ago on my blog.


  3. I do think it has become so for some people on both extremes. I know the Romans (at least on an official level) and a few other denominations can act as if there is no other sin at all. In our own community, I remember back in the mid-1990s when Jack Iker and some women clergy appeared on a stage arm-in-arm to “clean up the church”. (Was that the foundation of the AAC?) Although they didn’t say it then, I whispered “queers are the only ones left” to my copy of Episcopal Life.

    On the “inclusive” side there are times when one might hear a gasp of horror at the idea of including “the other” when the other is perceived as “homophobic”. They seem to be the only parties worthy of exclusion. We forget that Jesus ate with Pharisees as well.

    I agree with Simon: there is no reason to equate “acceptance or otherwise of homosexuality” with “acceptance or rejection of same-sex blessings”.

Comments are closed.