What is the standard in religion these days?

Although I am not an Anglican I can sympathize somewhat with the current Arch Bishop of Canterbury. The AP reports Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, struggling to hold together the troubled world Anglican family, urged church leaders gathered Sunday in England not to consecrate another gay bishop, saying the fellowship will be in "grave peril" without a moratorium." He has got that right. Not only is this denomination in "peril" but so many of the other religions are facing the exact same challenge and usually choosing the "wrong" one in my opinion.

The story also states that "The 77 million-member Anglican Communion has been splintering since 2003, when the U.S. Episcopal Church consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire." That is worth noting - a 77 million member community is breaking up due a gay man was consecrated as a Episcopalian Bishop. So this community is being fractured due to the dictates and desires of one man. Can we get any more selfish? This new bishop by forcing his defining characteristic (his sexual orientation) to the forefront of the church community has actually threatened the faith that he has been sworn in to serve.

What is more telling is that what is the standard now? I have always maintained that for religious folks, the church and the teachings of God is the standard which they measure themselves and their religion against. The Church is the standard that society meets (again for religious folks) not the other way around (Society is the standard (cultural mores) and the Church changes with the winds of society). So a religion has a certain belief about homosexuality and instead of the congregation and potential bishop abiding by the teachings of the church a change is forced to 'adjust the church' the personal opinions. I have a problem with this not because I feel one way or the other about sexual orientation but because I believe in some guardrails and standards that are a little bit bigger than someone's personal proclivities.

My feeling is that a person joins a religion because he or she wants to answer some of the questions that we all deal with - questions larger than ourselves. I am sure Catholics find specific affinities for Church teachings and dictates of the Pope. If a person is out of step with the religion, why should the religion conform to that person instead of the person conforming to the Church teachings? Did Moses distill the Word of God to conform to his personal beliefs or did it begin and end (Alpha and Omega) with God?

To expect a church to dilute or change their teachings on specific instances of cultural issues due to a small minority is at a minimum suspect (so the church appears more "in tune" with society) and in grander scale, actually a potential death knell of the religion. Which is not far off from what I would suspect, many cultural elites who sound off about the anachronistic teachings of one religion or the other would desire (the end of religion in general that dare "judges" someone's personal behavior). Religion is changing and trying to be more culturally hip and with that move, becoming something different than what drew so many people to its pews to begin with?

I wonder if Radical Islam is having these discussions within its congregations?

OS