The next ABC (come quickly)

Perhaps the next Pope o' Rome will have more trouble than the next ABC repairing his church from the actions of his predecessor, but it'll be a near thing. If, as his recent hagiography implies, Rowan was groomed for the See of Canterbury almost from grammar school, then the groomers must be mightily disappointed or even shamed. If his earlier actions and writings were taken as indications of what he was to do when he reached his fulfillment, then the watchers and readers were sadly disillusioned. If he was thought to be the one to repair the damage done by Peggy Thatcher's dithering revenge on the C of E for its weak support (at best) of Tory bellicosity and mammonolatry, the thinkers got it wrong.

Everything known suggest that Rowan was picked to do a number of fairly specific jobs to drag the C of E into at least the 1990s, if not the 21st century. These tasks included

Getting the chancel prancing Papist and the noisome and noisy Roundheads back into the Elizabethan settlement "Freedom of conscience within uniformity of worship*."

Getting women first and, almost immediately, unclosetted sexual minorities** into full participation in the church: as priests and bishops without restrictions and in all other roles as well.

Restoring the C of E's reputation as a leader in support of human right and the MDG.

Encouraging the North American Anglican communion churches to proceed on their trajectory of inclusion but to do so in a way that would help the C of E to catch up and stimulate some other churches to at least get started on this road.

On these tasks, at least, his score is a perfect zero.

The Papists are either looking to flee cross the Tiber or to build a church within the church, free from some off the usual rules (like subservience to your bishop). The Roundheads want to take over the church and force their uniformity on conscience as well as worship and form an alliance with the Papists (that is some progress, I suppose) to thwart the rest of the reform program. The great middle is largely ignored -- except briefly in General Synod, when it tries to enact the program as much as it can (to be subverted at the next step, with the ABC's covert support).

This last is, of course, about the matter, most openly, of women bishops, where the General synod passed -- over the ABC's pleas to the contrary -- a motion to make women bishops with full rights and duties, objectors to be handled more informally rather than by statute. In perfecting the legislation called for, the committee changed that to giving statutory restrictions on women bishops and statutory extraordinary rights to those who objected. General Synod may well reject this change, but that is, obviously, no guarantee that it will not end up being the final legislation. And the whole process has now been slowed down by at least another year.

At Lambeth, the Communion put on a big display for MDG, led by the C of E and Rowan his own self. Very little of this seems to have been cashed out by C of E, though other provinces, including some much poorer ones, have done quite a bit. Organizations around the C of E, but not part of it in any official way, have also done quite a bit.

The case for human rights is even more bleak. Groups around the church have done what they could; the church -- and Rowan in particular -- has mouthed general platitudes and refused to speak out about particular situations, even when -- maybe even especially when -- they involved churches in the Communion and the actions of their heads. This is back to the matter of sexual minorities, of course, since the most egregious of these non-pronouncements has been about the new, stricter --even lethal -- laws against homosexuality introduced in several African countries with the loud support of the heads of their Anglican churches. Of course, this path was already apparent in the home church with the debishoping of Jeffrey John early in Rowan's tenure and a variety of (generally unsuccessful) moves to prevent the blessing secular same-sex unions or even full wedding style ceremonies. And, in addition, the C of E repeatedly appealed for exemptions from non-discrimination laws for even positions most remote from religious purpose, matching or even beating the RCs. Theological musing and practices as a bishop of lesser standing would not bind the embodiment of the Anglican Communion.

And, since the C of E was not moving forward (or was even going backward a bit) and nothing was happening to jump-start the African churches, the appeal to North American to not get too far ahead had little force. The appeal was made, at least, but it was framed less in terms of not getting too far ahead and more in terms of not doing something totally wrong (maybe sinful, certainly discomforting to some and possibly a liability in some mission fields). Further, the framework of the appeal quickly came to be the framework for a structure new to the Communion (which isn't that old to begin with) which would change the appeal into a command -- never a good approach to the USA and Canada and something foreign to (indeed, against a foundational document of) Anglicanism.

In all of these failures, Rowan has had the opportunity to do the right thing, the thing he was trained up to do and promised to do, by word and deed, in his earlier career (though, to be fair, he did show signs of the power center idea of the ABC from early on). He took none of these opportunities and -- perhaps worse -- undercut those who tried to make what he did look like doing the right thing (++Katherine's appeal for B033 at GC2006 comes to mind).

May the next ABC come soon, while there is still a C of E or an Anglican Communion to serve.

*"uniformity of worship" is a sort of Anglican joke, since, at least in the older churches of the Communion, the official BCP and Hymnal are supplemented by a variety of more or less official improvements, trial usages, local usages, borrowed BCPs from elsewhere (and from elsewhen as well) so that quite possibly no two Anglican services are ever the same. And this doesn't even consider the pomp and circumstance bits that range from Byzantine elaboration to po' chapel minimalism (three hours to 25 minutes, say).

** Well, except for necrophiliacs, bestialists, pederasts and ephebophiles, the promiscuous, sadists, masochists, fetishists and so on. It basically means LGBT and even then probably with some exceptions, varying from place to place. In fairness, when this commitment is working, all are welcome and treated much the same outside considerations for ordination or certain occupations, like Sunday School teachers and choir directors.

Episcopocracy

I'm kinda slow. This didn't occur to me until I read some remarks by +Mark SC and Mimi's report of +ND's remarks.

Bishops in TEC don't have a lot of power in the church nor influence outside it. Almost all their actions have to be filtered through committees of priests and (brrr!) laity (even though they get to pick many of them). I don't know about Canada, though it sounds similar, but England is frustratingly different: their are still committees with some laity and the whole national government (virtually all lay, most not even in the church, some several not even Christian), but some of them do get a role in the actual national government (though a rather minor one) and all or more or less lords. And their opinions are sought outby the papers. And in Africa and other third (and lower) worlds, they are among the elite: cars when most have only bicycles, if that, mansions (not to say palaces), and other conspicuous signs of wealth. And their opinions -- even their support -- are sought out by the governments. No messy lay committee with any power, few messy priestly committees with any power.

It is not merely personal glorification that the Others want (to be a bishop, to be an Archbishop), it is power. The ACNA has so far only a College of Bishops and does not appear to be making much progress toward even a grammar school of laity or priests. The bishops who stole away from TEC had displayed an autocratic form within their dioceses and mean to continue and expand it. Before they had only the power of licensing and committee appointments to sway the events in their church, now they will be absolute.

Of course, this is all very unChristian (citation of contrasts between rulers of this world and rulers among Christians), as is attributing these motives to others, even if I had clear evidence, but it does help me see how little this all has to do with homosexuality or Biblical interpretation or creedal fidelity or any of the other things being tossed about. It's just like politics (than which it is hard to say a natier thing).

I know, I know

I should stop writing about same-sex marriage and talk about health care. But it is clear that the people who are screaming about the actual proposals in health care, are not going to listen to facts or the actual text of the bills (unless they misread it like McCaughey), so it seems pointless to add another unheard voice to the many clearly heard ones. Of course, one could the same about same-sex marriage and homosexual inclusion. My only defense is that, until recently, no one seemed to me to being agood job in sorting out the various sense of marriage and what was peculiar to each. I don't suppose that the antis ever will, but hopefully (and, indeed, apparently) some of the pros are getting better at it.

Trans

The problems of a very good runner in a women's race the other day brings to the fore the problems I am having understanding transgender (etc.) within the lgbt spectrum. Her problem seems to be (if she really has a problem other than being too good a runner) with the apparently simple question of sex: plugs and sockets, right? But then chromosomes don't always match up, folks with a y chromosome, may be sockets because they can't process testosterone (another athlete's case). I suppose in some possible realm a double x is a plug because s/he is overly sensitive to testosterone or overproduces it or radically misuses estrogen or the details of organ development just got screwed up in the womb. This latter event accounts for a certain number of babies every year being born intersex, with plumbing not clearly one way or the other. Chromosome checks and hormone checks can give some sense of what was intended and surgery can recreate that result, but not always completely, giving a fully functional person of the apparent sex. And some people who pass initial inspection still turn out to be intersex in later life, with some characteristic of each sex -- stereotypically penis and breasts as a hermaphrodite, but other combinations occur. On the other side, we find men who have two y chromosomes (and one x) and women with three xs, who tend to give exaggerated versions of their sex's (stereo)typical behavior (which raises the question of what a double x + y would be like). And, in the end, some one has to decide -- separately for each situation, probably -- how much of what is enough to assign a person to a particular sex. If matters are so confusing for prima facie objective questions of sex, what chance have more subjective questions to be simple or straightforward?

Gender roles are social constructions; society determines how a person of a given sex is supposed to behave and dress and talk in various circumstances. In some societies these are very restrictive, basically one pattern allowed, at least in public. Other societies offer a number of options, though usually with a core of common measures (even executive women in custom suits don't wear boxers, say). People who violate these patterns are thought odd (though possibly in a good way, but usually not -- at least patronizing), people who behave more in the pattern of the other sex are thought queer (definitely in a pejorative sense, sometimes a criminal one). But again much depends on context: Eddie Izzard or Dame Edna or Chantilly on stage is at most slightly discomforting, one of them in the same get-up (well, down a bit for Chantilly) in the checkout line at Wal-mart is something else again. Age, status, occupation and a whole range of socially defined differentia play a role in setting the limits. And. as there is intersex in sex, so there is androgyny is roles -- people who do not conform to either set of patterns but pick some from each.

The corresponding intermediate position in gender identity is gender queer or gender nonconforming. Gender identity is what the person thinks themself to be: male, female, neutral or both, regardless of their body and the roles they play in society. In many respects this seems to be the most important factor for transgendered people. They have this sense of gender identity that is at variance with their bodies often long before they can act out the other roles and may keep it in their core self-identification even it they do not act out the corresponding roles. But when possible, maybe only occasionally and briefly, maybe as a new life, they will live as their identity, obeying the patterns of their self-identified gender ( and perhaps eventually reshaping their bodies to conform). This, a real chosen life-style, still -- in a society where it is possible at all -- carries a load of burdens, even if fairly "successful:" official identification papers (though these are getting easier to change), rest room choices, the constant threat of original socialization popping up in a wrong move, and so on. Notice that, while coming to live with a gender identity not of your body is a choice, the gender identity itself does not seem to be, although its sources are less well understood or even explored than even sexual orientation, which is another, separate factor and the one that gets the most press (perhaps confusedly).

Sexual orientation has to do with what sort of person you can/do become romantically and sexually involved with. The choices are men, women, both, either (and whatever else there might be) or none. But, given what has gone before, this is not as clear cut a choice as it might seem: is the desire for a body structure or a way of living or some combination. Biologically speaking, the answer has to be that the quest is for body structure, with roles coming in only as a clue to that. But that still leaves many combinations to be sorted out: neither man oblivious to the successful transrole of his partner nor the partner, fully self-identified as female, thinks of themself as being a homosexual, even when the situation is revealed. Contrarywise, a body male who self identifies as female though takes on none of the female roles may have sex with a body-and-self-identified female and think of its as a homosexual encounter, regardless of what the partner or the rest of the world would think.

So now I am getting closer to my question, which might now be put as something like "How much of physical homosexuality is covert identity heterosexuality (and tother way round, of course)? One of the gender roles is clearly attraction to the opposite gender, but this is separate from the other roles, so it may be the only cross role one plays. Or the other parts of the cross role one uses may be minor or occasional. The gay and lesbian people I have talked to seem to be quite comfortable in their bodies, but they may not be totally frank or they may not be representative of a significant group. None of this has anything to do with the right of every person to be who they want to be and to be united with the one they love, with at least the state's blessing and without hassles, but it raises a lot of questions about research and scientific understanding of human sexuality.

It's empty because there is nothing in it

I don't have a problem with the Shroud of Turin. Its claim to be the burial shroud of Jesus doesn't get past the first word. Assuming that the Crucifixion took place more or less as described, Jesus wasn't buried. Pontius Pilate was a strict military governor (in fact, called home once for being overly severe), so he isn't going to break an easy rule. In three hundred years of continuous conquest, the Romans had learned that leaving a tomb -- or any other visible reminder -- of a charismatic rebel leader just leads to a prolonged or recurring rebellion. So, he would not have agreed to Joseph's request, even if Joseph had been fool enough to make it -- admitting friendship with a just executed rebel leader was grounds for arrest and at least a beating.

"But all the texts agree that Jesus was buried." Well, yes, because you need a burial to get a resurrection (if a body got up from the garbage heap where the crucified were tossed, no one would notice or could point to the evidence that one was missing). And the resurrection was necessary to complete, make sense of, the crucifixion. Which is somehow necessary for our salvation (though just how is hard to answer in a way consistent with other theological points).

Of course, the resurrection presents its own problems as well. If Jesus' body was resuscitated, it is a very strange body indeed. The inevitable damage from being dead 36 hours has been repaired, though not the external wounds. It can eat and break bread and be felt, but it can also pass through walls or, more likely, port to or from any place. And it does not seem to be in continuous existence, for there are long stretches when no one knows where it is (I will pass over the levitation at the end). Once you allow all that, the difference from a vision seems mostly verbal. And Paul, who never claims more than a vision, still claims that what he had was the same as what the Twelve and Mary and all had.

But the question is still, what does all this or any part of it have to do with our salvation?

Well, gag me with a feather

As thatFriend of Jake said. I think I have never been so happy to be wrong. Or nearly wrong, since the resolutions on blessing same-sex unions is still out there somewhere. But for now, Yah-hooo!
And a better than 2 to 1 margin: no bad surprises, a few good ones, and the dunnos vastly went for 'Yes.'

Getting it rite

Another corollary to the axiom, "A committed life-long relation between two people of the same sex is the moral equivalent of a heterosexual marriage" is (in case I haven't mentioned it before)
A committed life-long relation between two people of the same sex deserves all the recognition and support from both church and state that a heterosexual marriage does.
That is, the state ought to give out marriage licenses to such couples and the church ought to solemnize, bless and proclaim their union. (I would add that the state ought to have rules for divorces for such couples and the church ought to devise rites for the dissolution of all unions, but that is another issue.)

To review the reasons in favor of taking up these obligations, simple equality aside:
The state gets information which will simplify questions about rights and responsibilities of property and the course of public health threats as well as increasing the societal bend toward stability. In short, just the reasons for licensing and recording heterosexual marriages.

The church also have exactly the same reasons for proclaiming and blessing these relations as it has for heterosexual marriages: supporting the stability of the family, channeling desires, and providing temporal images of God's love.

And what can be put up in opposition to these actions of church and state?

They legalize, even bless, sin!

Well, even assuming homosexual sex acts are sinful (oh dear, there's another topic to look at), they are already legal (that is, decriminalized -- finally, but somehow still insultingly). Indeed, states are coming more and more to the realization that criminalizing sin per se is a bad, unproductive, idea -- quite aside from any notion of separation between church (the spotter of sin) and state (the spotter of crime). There are overlaps, of course, but the sins that are also crimes should be outlawed for their criminal (they muck up property transactions), not their religious (they piss God off), content. And, of course, the state doesn't license the sex -- if any -- in a marriage, only the union (and the accompanying property rights and duties -- all the state can deal with, after all.) The same applies to churches, who do not bless the sex acts in a marriage, but the union itself. While sex acts may be presumed to be a part of a marriage, they are not singled out for special consideration.

Well, even if they don't license or bless homosexual sex acts, these actions would provide secure place to carry them out and thus increase their frequency.

How much did the spread of marriage laws and marriage rites increase the amount of heterosexual sex acts in olden times? Or, if that is too speculative, how much has the decline in marriage in modern times decreased the amount of sexual activity? The effect is surely negligible, even if you don't think post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy. And why, exactly, would increased frequency, did it occur, be a bad thing? If the issue is increased sin and damnation, then we need to look again at Paul, who, after all those passages apparently about how awful homosexual desires and actions are, always comes back to the Good News that all of that (and other things also in the tirade) is vanished in the salvific action of Jesus. So, unless you think seventy times seven is a literal limit on the number of times one can be forgiven for something (in which case, you have less than a year and a half before damnation overtakes you) rather than a symbolic way of saying "as long as he asks," a Christian homosexual (and this is not an oxymoron, by this same reasoning) does not fall deeper into sin and damnation at all.
(Note: this not urging increased sin so that grace may increase, but merely noting that, if it were sin, grace would be sufficient to cover it.)

Well, even if it doesn't legitimate sin, it does legitimate an unhealthy life-style.

I guess I never understood what the gay life-style was, because, with some few flaming exceptions -- easily matched from straight culture, though in somewhat different form -- the lives of the gays I know or hear about do not seem that different from anybody else's: drag out of bed, slog off to work, drag home, watch tv, sleep. I tend to think, then, that "lifestyle" is again a code for "sex act". So, then, are homosexual sex acts more unhealthy than heterosexual ones (presumably meaning heterosexual ones that homosexuals don't engage in, since most homosexual sex acts are also heterosexual ones, with insignificant -- from a health point of view -- modifications). I suppose that each sex act carries unique risks and, if that danger is realized and the act is stigmatized, proper treatment might be delayed and unhealthy consequences ensue. But then, legitimating the context of the act would go some way toward removing the stigma and the delay in treatment, hence, hopefully, the bad outcome. Yet another way in which marriage is a healthy choice.

So, I see no rational reason against marriage for all couples, and several reasons in favor of it -- for both church and state. All that is left against it is the ick factor, which is no ground for such an important choice.