Catholics out scriptured by Anglican conservatives
January 4, 2008
I rage about so much about the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell that it’s easy to forget the Anglican Archbishop of that city, Peter Jensen can be equally horrible:
OUTSPOKEN Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen is galvanising opposition to homosexuality in the church, in the lead-up to an unofficial meeting of conservative bishops in Jerusalem.
As rifts in the worldwide Anglican Church threaten to become a schism, the Sydney Archbishop said American Anglicans had become missionaries for homosexuality in defiance of the Bible and Anglican teaching.
I guess it goes to show that American religiosity is not all fundamentalist biblical literalism. Good for them.
Earlier, in a statement, Dr Jensen said: “Some American Anglicans are as committed to their new sexual ethics as to the Gospel itself, and they intend to act as missionaries for this faith, wishing to persuade the rest of us.” He said the rest of the Anglican world must be vigilant to guard the teaching of Scripture. “The problems posed by the American church are not going to remain in America.”
Dr Jensen told The Age the worldwide church had irreversibly changed. Since the Americans defied the world’s bishops in 1998 and the Bible by endorsing same-sex unions and consecrating a gay bishop, Lambeth had lost its authority, he said.
Both atheists and moderate theists have long argued against the logic of scriptural literalism, with Christian moderates re-interpreting or labeling as anachronistic biblical strictures that do not fit with our societies constantly evolving modern moral zeitgeist.
We don’t stone people for working on the Sabbath, we don’t label menstruating women unclean, and we don’t execute disobedient children – all of which are supported by literal biblical scripture. And yet many religious groups subscribe to a belief in the inherent immorality of same sex relationships, based on scripture possessing the same authority as that prohibiting the eating of shellfish and supporting the appropriateness of treating of women as property.
In a country supposedly built around core ideals of religious*, political, racial and cultural plurality I find it difficult to understand how this kind of discrimination based on sexual orientation is tolerated, because it’s plain unjust regardless of where it is written or who preaches it.
* And non-religious. Of course.