Contact the church office for tickets.

The church’s local voice is this: although the church could not support the death penality, it does, in both countries support the rest of the legislation.  In fairness I must say that the church in Uganda is “studying” the proposal and has taken no official position.  However, by not saying early, strongly and difinitively that the church opposes such legislation one can see how the church views homosexuals.  One Christian leader, not an Anglican, proposed that all homosexuals be rounded up, taken to an island and left there until they die.  In his view, I suppose, this would solve the problem once and for all.  This kind of rhetoric is hard to believe, but it is actually coming from the mouth’s of people who claim to be followers of Jesus. 

It is worth noting that Archbishop Orombi of Uganda and Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria are among the leaders of the movement among Anglicans who do not want to be in communion with the church in the United States because of our inclusion of all persons in the life of our church, including homosexuals.  I have been one who has hoped that we can remain in dialogue and find a way to stay together.  But this gives me pause.  One wonders how it is we are supposed to be in communion with parts of Christianity that is supportive of legislation that is absolutely evil.  And more than that, how can we continue to be in communion with parts of Christianity who say one thing about homosexuals one day, and then something entirely different the next?  The church in Uganda and NIgeria cannot be trusted to live and minister as they say they will.  For example, Akinola signed (I am not certain whether or not Orombi was present to sign, but he has nowhere I can find refuted the communique of the Anglican Primates) a statement in 2005 that said the Anglican Church would, “…continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people.  The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us.  We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship.”

Really?  Orombi, Akinola and others in their churches have an odd way of living  what they say they believe.

The Roman Catholic Church, through its U S Conference of Catholic Bishops, has weighed in on the issue, as the church ought to do.  Their position, at least as I understand it, is to be certain than no public funds are to be used to perform abortions, which is the current federal law.  Their aim furthermore, at least as I understand it, is to restrict access to federal money for abortions through a public option, if there is one in the final bill.  The public option is likely to be the way poor women access health care, and likely the way they would have insurance to pay for abortions.  I support the position of the Church in Rome on this to a degree.

The position of the Episcopal Church on abortion is that we support a woman’s right to choose in the case of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life.  I would favor access to abortion through a public option in these instances.  It is my belief, and only mine, that the Roman Church would not support even that.

Health care reform is something desperately needed in this country.  Abortion is not only a divisive issue, but an important one with deep theological undertones.  People have different theological understandings of what occurs when an abortion is performed.  I believe intelligent, caring, faithful people can work out their differences in the language of the bill.  It is my hope that we can have a civil debate on this difficult topic and not let it sideline reform.