I had to split this post because it was becoming a bit of a monster!
Expecting such a varied group of people as the Anglican communion to agree on anything is major challenge, let alone complex theology and biblical interpretation. In western society, we recognise that a person's individual and cultural background influence how they interpret a text; as a former history student, I've been taught to consider how people's opinions of what is said change over time. We accept this reinterpretation as normal, and not diminishing the text in any way. (whether we think it's right or not!) But for many in other cultures, where things are still often seen as black and white rather than complicated shades of grey, it's seen as a betrayal of the ancient and traditional interpretation of the text.
In the west, we often see tradition as a bad thing, something that holds us back or reminds us of the bad old days of ingorance, but elsewhere tradition is something to be revered, a vital link to the past that gives the present meaning. I think that helps us to understand why so many "conservatives" get upset when the question of change is raised. It's not that they're bigoted, but that they see things in a different way and from a different viewpoint from our modern western society. It's all very well for us to say "This is what God wants," but our prejudices, our background, who we are cloud our judgement. We should only say that kind of thing with great humility and respect for our fellow Christians.
What's missing from the media's reporting of these debates, but I desperatly hope is not absent from the conference itself, is an acknowledgement of God's love; freely given, not earned. The ability to say "I don't agree with you, but I can still worship alongside you because the God who unites us is so much bigger than what divides us, and his plan for the world is so much more important than our petty little squabbles."
I don't mean to trivialise the debate or play down its importance to many people. Regardless of the original question, the bigger question of obedience to God & the Bible to which the conservatives have linked it is a very important one, as is the issue of how we interpret the Bible. Much of the debate might be improved if we, the churchgoing public, were more familiar with what the bible actually says rather than relying on other people to tell us!
My two pennyworth: Jesus was pretty scathing about the Pharisees, and their attitude that all that mattered to God was behaving rightly. I wonder sometimes if we (and by we I mean most Christians, at least in this country) put too much emphais on behaviour? Part of Jesus' message was that it was more important to have God's heart, God's attitude of love towards those who are in need or underpriviledged than to conform to a rigid code of conduct. He showed this when he broke Jewish law by healing on the sabbath (see Luke 6 verses 1-10, or Matthew 12 v1-14). Of course, that doesn't mean we have licence to break whatever laws we want, Jesus said "I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfil it" (Matthew 5 v17). But it does mean that we should be very careful how we treat others, even if we think they're acting in a way God disapproves of (and in circumstances like this, where there's debate over whether or not that's the case, we should be doubly careful). Jesus also was pretty strict about telling his disciples not to judge one another, because none of us (not even bishops and archbishops!) are perfect! (see Matthew 7, v 1-5.)
I do hate the way media treats debates over homosexuality and women as if they were the main issues facing the church. And so often the church accepts this, even acts as if it were true. But if it is, that worries me far more than whether or not gay priests, or even women bishops, are accepted. Surely, if we are really true to the gospel of Christ, we'd be far more concerned about the hurt and broken, the poor and lonely in our society and our world, those starving and in pain, and most of all those who don't know the astounding truth that God loves them, every one.
But that may just be my opinion. Anyone agree?
