Anglican Angst
If Anglicans still had any lingering doubts about the wisdom of the ordination of the openly gay Gene Robinson, Mr. Robinson has settled the question once and for all: It was a mistake. Consider his most recent comments about Jesus:
Update: I found this article that describes how Robinson's own church had to shut down because of the lack of finances (stemming from a severe drop in church membership) that followed his ordination.
In answer to a question from the congregation about how the acceptance of homosexuality could be squared with the scriptural emphasis on redemption for sins, the Bishop replied: "Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values, this man that we follow was single, as far as we know, travelled with a bunch of men, had a disciple who was known as 'the one whom Jesus loved' and said my family is not my mother and father, my family is those who do the will of God. None of us likes those harsh words. That's who Jesus is, that's who he was at heart, in his earthly life.The fact that Scripture is so clear when it comes to the sinful nature of homosexuality coupled with the Anglican church's blindness to this fact proves that the issue within the Anglican church was never about what's the most faithful approach to obeying the Word of God. But you would think that at the very least, the Anglican church could at least show some respect for pragmatism and common sense. Robinson is a lightening rod that has caused far more harm than good to the Anglicans--not because he is gay per se but because the church is likely to split over this issue. It seems as though the Anglican church is either stupid for ordaining Robinson or it's more concerned with driving a liberal social agenda down the throats of its members--theology, doctrine, and church history aside. I think it's a combination of both, but more so the latter (after all, how can people be that stupid). And Idiotic statements like the one above only accelerate the growing fissures among Anglicans.
''Those who would posit the nuclear family as the be all and end all of God's creation probably don't find that much in the gospels to support it," he said.
Update: I found this article that describes how Robinson's own church had to shut down because of the lack of finances (stemming from a severe drop in church membership) that followed his ordination.
9 Comments:
Considering how you believe that humanity is inherently sinful, particularly in the sense of being proud and egotistical, I'm kind of surprised you say that a drop in church membership is somehow proof positive that they made the "wrong" choice.
Even if the current population demonizes them, history will vindicate the Episcopalian Church (and you really should say "Episcopalian" since the Church of England is also opposed to the ordination). Like the abolitionists, the suffragettes, and those who spent Freedom Summer registering voters in our own little town of Oxford, the Episcopalian Church will be remembered as the ones who truly understood the message of God even as everyone around them was blinded by their own sense of superiority and false righteousness.
BTW, you might be interested in this: http://www.savethehubble.org/petition.jsp
~Kes
Yeah, don't say "Anglican" here. You've probably seen how the Communion has already isolated the ECUSA, effectively removing them from the workings of the global church. The church in Nigeria, for example, would find your characterization misplaced, and so would many excellent church men and women in Britain.
Otherwise, your comment on pragmatism is a bit off, I think. Since when is Christianity practical by the world's standards? But I think you know that's not the real issue. The issue is a church making up its own story about the world, saying, in its denial of the historical (Robinson's comments on Jesus) basis of the faith, "we make ourselves." (It reminds me of pharoah's claim in Ezekiel 29 that he "made the Nile.")
That all said, is calling the church stupid really the battle worth fighting? Who are you trying to convince? I certainly have no magical solution, but I'm resistant to this sort of picketing because it sounds more like a political debate than the gospel.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
My point wasn't so much a matter of religion or theology as it was of pragmatism. The debate over homosexuality in the church is well-worn and both sides know perfectly well where the other stands. What I'm so baffled by is why the Episcopalian church would let itself be torn asunder by this issue. I use the word stupid in reference to the Episcopal's not because some are stupid for being gay or being ok with homosexuality in the church--if that were so, sam, your comment about the gospel would be most accurate--it's a gospel of love, not of contrived hostilities of provocation. But I use that word because I truly can't see why it's in the interest of Episcopals to let this issue so divide--surely they would say that the gospel is more important than the ordination of Gene Robinson. And I would add as well that I was in fact approaching this more from a political/practical point of view rather than from the standpoint of the gospel because I believe the Episcopal church has already removed it from the realm of the Gospel. But that point aside, this analysis isn't based so much on theological or moral concern (although it's there) as it is based on practical considerations. It seems to me that there are some very very general points that all nominal Christians should agree on: that the primary purpose of the church is to edify (by teaching and administering the sacraments) and, secondarily, to evangelize. These two overriding goals can only be achieved if the church itself is unified. Unity of believers is therefore of paramount importance--irrespective of doctrinal differences. Why then ordain an openly gay bishop knowing full well the contraversy and division it will cause? Were theology or church history substantially behind such a decision, such a move would be understandable. But neither substantially support the Episcopal church's decision. Self-destruction is never a smart move. Sam, I at least expect people to act out of reasonable self-preservation.
And Kes, when I say they made the "wrong" choice, I can only repeat what I've already said: we both know where the other stands on the moral analysis of homosexuality. But this is one of those cases where I mean wrong absent a moral consideration. I simply mean that its the wrong choice in terms of maintaining unity in the church. Two Episcopals can sit in the same church, one having no Biblical problem with homosexuality, the other opposed to it, and there be no overwhelming problems. But as soon as that issue is forced to the forefront in the way it was with Gene Robinson, the co-existence of the two within the same local church body is unreasonably strained. And it's in the church's best interest to avoid this sort of situation if the primary and secondary functions of the church aren't compromised.
All this having been said, thanks for the comments. They're always welcome.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
That's funny...it looks like I censored myself.
I think their position is that taking the proper moral path while being splintered is more important than staying unified but being immoral.
~Kes
A belated comment:
Jordan sayeth: "Why then ordain an openly gay bishop knowing full well the contraversy and division it will cause? Were theology or church history substantially behind such a decision, such a move would be understandable. But neither substantially support the Episcopal church's decision. Self-destruction is never a smart move. Sam, I at least expect people to act out of reasonable self-preservation."
In that case, the entire body of Christ - ECUS, Anglican Communion, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and the various bastard-child Protestant denominations - really should have refrained from this nihilistic orgy of ordaining women and minorities. Certainly neither of these groups should have even been allowed communion. Neither was in the best interest of the church, as such matters generated incredible controversy at the time of their initial proposal, and many congregations (and even entire denominations) were sundered. Jesus's doctrine of the two true commandments should, indeed, take a back seat to commercial-style pragmatism. The Free Market of the One True God, one might say.
Please allow me to direct you to the precepts which do support the ECUS's decision:
--The status of homosexuality in the generally accepted (i.e. Council of Trent) Scripture is nothing if not obfuscated. Most translators who can be considered respected in their field - the field of translation, not the field of radicalism - agree that the majority of the prohibitions against men lying with men are in regards to temple prostitution. In the case of everyone's favorite Semitic hood, Sodom, it's easily more likely that destruction was a result of inhospitality, and that homosexuality had nothing to do with it. And let's not get started on Paul.
--But since it appears that everyone in American Protestant culture has been formed to a mold which excludes scholarly interpretation, perhaps we'll fall back on Jesus's words and deeds in themselves: Never once does he condemn homosexuals or homosexuality... but he does hang around with what amounts to the scum of the earth. And he loves them, and he calls them his own, and he directs them to carry out his work upon the earth. Ten percent or more, m'boys; at least one of the apostles, statistically speaking, was a fag. And I'm betting it wasn't Judas.
--And finally: Considering how love and acceptance are the most dangerous competitors to reactionary hatred, I can see where you might be concerned with the world's response to the ECUS's open-arms policy; however, why does it matter to you? Do you have investments in the Episcopal church? Will this affect your capital gains tax or something?
By the bye, if you'd like to respond, please address me as "Father", as I am a clergyman of the Church.
A few responses:
You say: "The status of homosexuality in the generally accepted (i.e. Council of Trent) Scripture is nothing if not obfuscated. Most translators who can be considered respected in their field - the field of translation, not the field of radicalism - agree that the majority of the prohibitions against men lying with men are in regards to temple prostitution."
I have to say that I'm amused by how you frame this issue. Either you agree with your interpretation of the Bible or you're a radical. The fact is that there are scores of Biblical scholars--albiet they may not be left leaning--who believe that the language of the Bible, taken in its orginal sense and meaning condemns and forbids homosexuality.
You say: "In the case of everyone's favorite Semitic hood, Sodom, it's easily more likely that destruction was a result of inhospitality, and that homosexuality had nothing to do with it."
This proposition is only accepted if you're first willing to replace the biblical account in Genesis 19 with the testimony of some modern archeologists. There's no textual basis for this, and if your willing to let your Biblical interpretation be directed by every whim of man's archeological opinions then the Bible can have NO meaning to you--so why believe anything it says. But forget my taking your logic to the extreme. Simply marvel at you assertion despite the explicit account of the biblical text in Genesis. I suppose, that if you equate homosexual gang rape as an element of not being hospitable, then we might begin to have some common ground of agreement.
You say: "And let's not get started on Paul."
And I say, Why not? What is it that makes Paul any less authoratative than any other author of the Bible? Is it that his words in Romans 1 are textually more difficult for you to surmount and you just don't want to address it? Or is it that you think you can pick and choose what authors or portions of the Bible are relevant to your life and your theology? The Bible is a take it or leave it book. Once you disregard any part of it, you dispense with the entire doctrine of inerrancy and inspiration. And once you do that the Bible means nothing more than any other text. And if that's the case, then there's no basis for Christianity (because how could we otherwise know anything about the God we worship and his plan and will for us apart from our subjective ideas of what "God" is?).
You say: "perhaps we'll fall back on Jesus's words and deeds in themselves:"
But why fall back on Jesus's words and not Paul's? Are his words somehow more accurately recorded in a way that Paul's aren't? Or are we to only believe the red text in our Bibles? Jesus authenticated his ministry by quoting the Scriptures over and over again. He recognized the authority of the entire canon of His day and we should only do the same.
You say: "Never once does he condemn homosexuals or homosexuality... "
Your entire argument here is based upon omission--what's not there. Surely you recognize the weakness of this.
You say: "but he does hang around with what amounts to the scum of the earth."
I hope, though, that you're not suggesting that I infer from this that you think that homosexuals are the scum of the earth (something, by the way, I don't believe). Again, you're simply trying to infer and assume a truth that's not there.
You say: "at least one of the apostles, statistically speaking, was a fag"
OK, I'm sold. You have me there.
Seriously, you can't be serious. Your statistical approach would only be theoretically saved if Jesus's disciples were drawn at random from the population. But they weren't. They were hand picked for reason God only knows.
You say: "Considering how love and acceptance are the most dangerous competitors to reactionary hatred, I can see where you might be concerned with the world's response to the ECUS's open-arms policy"
First, I don't hate homosexuals. This is convenient to assert on your part because it sensationalizes the argument in your favor. However, it is a mean-spirited assertion in itself. My concern is conduct, not a person's entire being. Surely you yourself believe there is more to a person how is gay besides his sexuality. And just because I believe that homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean I think myself any better. You must look at the totality of a person's state. I struggle with sins you don't. You struggle with sins I don't etc... The point is we're all sinners in the eyes of God and all in need of the redeeming work of Christ on the cross. My ultimate concern for homosexuals is the same concern I have for everyone: that they knew God in Jesus Christ.
You say: "why does it matter to you? Do you have investments in the Episcopal church? Will this affect your capital gains tax or something?"
I wonder if your making an assumption about my economic politics because I'm alligned morally against homosexuality... But that aside, what takes place in the Episcopal church concerns me because the Episcopal church contains brothers and sisters in Christ and all Christians should be concerned about the unity of the church as a whole. Furthermore, all Christians should be concerned about sound doctrine in all the churches. And if I believe a particular church hemorrhaging doctrinally, as a Christian I can't help but be concerned.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home