Darren Ong's letter on the 'double standards' of Malaysian Anglican Church leaders has, in my opinion, misinterpreted Bewildered's argument .
Bewildered makes reference to the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference of 1998 in his letter. This is essentially a conference held every 10 years since 1867 which involves the convening of all the bishops from the various Anglican-Episcopalian churches worldwide, in order to discuss pertinent scriptural issues for the Worldwide Anglican Communion.
The flurry of letters that can be seen recently in malaysiakini , both supporting and condemning homosexuality, is reflective of the actual debate at the most recent Lambeth Conference of 1998, where the so-called 'liberal' or 'progressive' bishops (who propose a gay-friendly interpretation of the scriptures) were pitted against the 'conservative' or 'backward' bishops (who denounce homosexuality).
The conference is very important because it passed a series of resolutions that represents a reconciliation of the various conflicting viewpoints of the scripture held by different bishops of the Communion.
Various churches worldwide are thus able to present a uniform Anglican viewpoint of how the scriptures should be applied in context to current situations, independently of the personal opinions of the bishops concerned.
This explains why Malaysian Anglican leaders, in their statement threatening to break communion with the diocese of Bishop Michael Ingham, justify their stand by noting that Bishop Ingham had violated Resolution I.10 of Lambeth 1998 rather than quoting from scripture.
The ordination of the new gay bishop, Canon Gene Robinson, is also in violation of the same resolution and is thus correctly opposed by the Malaysian Anglican leaders, regardless of what other pro-gay Malaysians might think.
And if Bewildered is right in his claims about the Church violating Resolution I.1, then his use of verse Matthew 7:3-5 is absolutely spot on. Certainly, a Christian should be able to condemn someone else's immoral behaviour, but a Christian who commits armed robbery ('plank in your own eye') should not be condemning another who steals an apple ('speck of sawdust').
From a purely secular viewpoint, my assessment would be that violation of Resolution I.1 (which could indirectly result in human death, as for example in the case of the deported Rohingya refugees) represents a far more serious transgression (plank in your own eye) than violation of Resolution I.10 (speck of sawdust).
Using Darren's explanation of the Malaysian Anglican church handling the 'larger' heresy of same-sex unions first before tackling the 'smaller' heresy of polygamy, then surely the 'largest' heresy would be passivity in the face of unjust prosecution of innocent people (ISA, refugees, etc).
I believe the Bible makes even more stronger and frequent assertions to Christians to extend their love and protection to the helpless (Matthew 25:45), than it does on the prohibition of homosexuality.
Another point that Bewildered is perhaps unaware of is the fact that a few states (such as Vermont) in the US now have laws allowing same-sex unions as a civil ceremony, and the courts in Massachusetts are currently debating the possible legislation of same-sex marriage.
Thus it could be very possible that in the not-too distant future, a church in these states that refused to sanctify a same-sex union could potentially end up with a lawsuit. Whether scripturally justified or not, the bishops in some US states are also acting to keep up with legal trends and what they perceive to be a more 'humanistic' reading of the Bible.
In a similar manner, churches in Malaysia, while trying to adhere to the Great Commission to spread the gospel of Christ, must also work within the legal framework of our country which forbids them from actively proselytising to Muslims.
To conclude, although perhaps quite guilty of moral hypocrisy, the Anglican Church in Malaysia is perfectly justified in threatening to break communion with the Diocese of New Hampshire, not on scriptural grounds but on legal grounds (the Lambeth Resolutions).
In retrospect, the Church leaders' outburst about the election of the gay bishop is probably not so much about self-righteous indignation than it is about pacifying and reassuring their members, many of whom are unaware of the theological debate in the West regarding homosexuality.
I suspect they believe (rightly or otherwise) that relenting even the slightest on this issue could potentially lead to a volatile situation where gay Christians begin demanding acceptance in local Malaysian churches.
However I concur with Bewildered's recommendation of refraining from breaking communion, but from a practical viewpoint. Forcing this issue too strongly at this early stage could potentially fracture the Anglican church into two sides (or more).
The smaller 'gay-friendly' faction would no longer be constrained by the overall leadership, and could undertake more aggressive efforts such as attempting to propagate their gay-friendly biblical interpretation to places like Asia.
It would only take about 200 or so gay Christians to come out and establish their own church, with full financial and moral support from the gay-friendly Anglican faction in the West. In fact, there are already some Asian countries, such as Taiwan which have gay friendly churches (Tong-Kwang Presbyterian, Metropolitan Community Church).
This would clearly be contra-indicative to the interests of local Christian churches. Maintaining unity in the church would give the Anglican leaders greater reign over the liberal branches in the US, as well as buying additional time for Malaysian Anglicans to cope with and address this issue on their own terms and understanding.
By the time (if ever at all) the Anglican Communion were to decide to validate same-sex unions, homosexuality presumably would have been comprehensively researched.
With greater awareness of these issues, Malaysian Anglicans could then vote with more confidence on whether to finally accept gay people into their midst or break away from the Worldwide Anglican Communion.
