Jules Jones' LJ is one I've gotten into the habit of regularly reading. Sometimes she links to really great information for authors, sometimes she has quite good things for readers, and often enough she writes very thought-provoking posts. I liked this one: http://julesjones.livejournal.com/370233.html. I'm pretty much just nominally religious, but I am technically part of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion probably hasn't had as much rebellion as it's had in the last few decades from the American branch since the American Revolution. I don't think too many congregations have split off from the Episcopal Church because of the liberalism, but one method they use is to have a church (diocese?) in Africa as a sponsor. A conservative type of Anglicanism is apparently relatively quite popular in parts of Africa. The United States may have the wealth, and the Church here still has a disproportionate influence coming from its history in America, but the Communion pays a lot of attention to those growing numbers of people in Africa. The argument that many African conservatives make, which is rather difficult to dispute, is that their people are poor and starving, and once they're prosperous, they'll worry about that liberal nonsense. Some are resentful of the people in the developed nations who have such great amounts of money. Quite a number of Episcopalians on the Main Line here in Pennsylvania and in some parts of New York City and its suburbs are extremely well-off. I'm sure some donate huge sums to charity. But the perception is that they don't have any problems, so they can afford to do social experiments.
On the contrary to the conservatives' view, I think that acceptance of people's differences is more Christian than insisting on a tight control on the way the congregants think. Of course there are some Anglicans in Africa who are filled with loving-kindness. I don't want to make it seem like I'm completely stereotyping. My personal perception is that many of those newer churches in Africa have an insistence on extreme orthodoxy to the mores of Victorian Anglicanism, except without the snobbery towards the poor. Obviously I am not filled with loving-kindness. I'm just not seeing the argument about how you have to be wealthy in order to afford to be tolerant. I'm certainly not wealthy, and I have a live-and-let-live attitude.
I think the contention in the article is fairly persuasive. It's certainly an interesting way to think about it. The United States has such powerful messages of "how society should work" that it's sometimes hard to remember how different other cultures are, and other times were, with concepts of gender roles and sexuality. Even with patriarchies, there were very different types of patriarchies, and varying sorts of relationships.