Am I missing something? Almost every time I read about the objections of Anglican provinces in the third world to the ordination of sexually active gay people or to the blessing of same-sex unions, the observation is made that these practices anywhere in the Communion make the life or mission of Anglicans in predominantly Muslim countries more difficult. That may be so, but I fail to see why anyone would think that is a valid argument against them.

The assertion that these are appropriate practices for the church is based on the belief that the church has been in error on condemning homosexuality as a sin and has a moral responsibility both to acknowledge that fact and where possible to undo the damage caused by that unjustified condemnation. The fact that a moral responsibility is convenient or created difficulties for those who acknowledge it is no argument against it. Confession of sin is almost always inconvenient and creates difficulties for those who confess, but we do not abandon it for this reason.

The fact that Islam permits polygamy is not urged as an argument for Christians to abandon monogamy. In the American South, before and during the civil rights movement of the '60s, many white preachers who said they believed in integration gave as an excuse for their silence that if they spoke out, they would lose their jobs. Happily there were many who rejected that excuse and stood their moral ground.

One may not agree with these practices on moral or theological grounds, in which case they should be addressed on those grounds. To argue against adopting a moral or a theological position on the grounds that it makes life or mission difficult is at least nonsensical if not immoral itself.

(The Rev.) Warner R. Traynham

St. John's Church

Los Angeles, Calif.