From Jim Naughton at The Lead:
A touching, revealing moment at the press conference just now. The bishops have been talking for several days now about sacrifice. “What are you willing to sacrifice” to keep the communion together?” The clear implication is that Western churches must sacrifice their desire to include gay Christians more fully in the Church.
Katie Sherrod of the Lambeth Witness asked the question I wanted to ask. In sum: who exactly do the bishops think is authorize[d] to negotiate on behalf of gay and lesbian Christians throughout the Communion? The primarily male, exclusively heterosexual delegations from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada?
The people who are being asked to make a sacrifice are not represented at this conference.
Katherine Ragsdale, also from the Witness, put a finer point on it with her question. It is the essence of Christianity to sacrifice one’s self for others. It is in the inverse of Christianity to ask others to sacrifice themselves for you. The future of the Anglican Communion may rest on the willingness of gay and lesbian Christians to “sacrifice” for it.
And the Communion doesn’t have the good grace to ask them to make that sacrifice directly, preferring to pretend that the Western churches have the moral authority to act as their surrogates.
This is the feudal morality—lords making decisions for their vassals.
At least Bishop Charles Jenkins of Louisiana had the good grace to say that he recognized that gay people had been disenfranchised, and to say that this presented a moral dilemma for him.
I've been saying it over and over, ad nauseam, that Jesus calls us, his followers, those of us who claim membership in the kingdom of God here on earth, to sacrifice ourselves, to take up our crosses and, in some cases, even to lay down our lives, as we seek to follow him and serve our brothers and sisters.
He never, ever calls us to lay crosses on the shoulders of others or to sacrifice others, no matter how righteous we believe a cause to be. It's all well and good to speak of sacrifice, but of whose sacrifice do we speak?
I'm pleased that Bishop Charles Jenkins, my bishop, recognizes that gay folks have been disenfranchised, which presents a moral dilemma for him.
Thanks to Katie Sherrod and Katherine Ragsdale for asking the right questions, and thank you, Jim Naughton, for this report.
Back to the question of representation, eh?
ReplyDeleteInteresting....
(and I'm sorry my snide comments were unclear, Grandmere. My apologies. But it's still an interesting question: how does the community decide what God's word is, and what it means? This is a very ecclesiological and theological question.)
I say sacrifice the bishops, and all the people expecting SOMEONE ELSE to do the sacrificing.
ReplyDelete"how does the community decide what God's word is, and what it means? This is a very ecclesiological and theological question."
Bullshit! It's a concrete matter of justice, not an abstract syllogism about doctrine.
It's about putting a rationalizing figleaf over base bigotries.
Rmj, we do have representatives from each parish at state conventions in TEC, and each diocese is represented at General Convention. We have, at the very least, the illusion of being represented. And then our representatives elect a bishop, which furthers the idea (or illusion) of participation. I've sent Bp. Jenkins a few emails while he's at Lambeth, and he responded to me.
ReplyDeleteNo apology expected or needed. You helped me learn a little more about my own church.
...how does the community decide what God's word is, and what it means? This is a very ecclesiological and theological question.)
Indeed, it is. Is it possible that the community as a whole can move closer to the truth embedded in God's word than a decree from on high?
Counterlight, of course it's a matter of justice, but, as you know, the church has supported injustices throughout the ages. I don't need to spell them out to you. It's plain to you and me where lies the path for justice in the church regarding gays and women, but not yet to everyone in the church. We do what we can to bring them around to right thinking and right actions.
ReplyDeleteBullshit! It's a concrete matter of justice, not an abstract syllogism about doctrine.
ReplyDeleteIt's about putting a rationalizing figleaf over base bigotries.
My, my! Okay, let me just say "justice" is not a "concrete matter," either, and leave it at that.
Actually, this is an issue of polity: how are these issues supposed to be decided? TEC seems to have a fairly democratic assumption behind its polity, but is that true for the Nigerian church, or even for the Archbishop of Canterbury? I.e., is Rowan a leader, or the ultimate decider, or just a figurehead?
I know there are concrete answers to these questions, and part of the problem here is: who gets the final say? Lambeth? A majority of bishops gathered together at one time? Does the Communion have authority over TEC if it says so?
Those are the polity questions going 'round and 'round right now. And justice, like everything else, is in the eye of the beholder. Or at least of those in a defined group who agree on what justice is.
I am ready and willing to sacrifice episcopal tea parties! Will that help?
ReplyDeleteOr, as we say here in the former colonies, "no taxation without representation."
Came over hoping to share the Jenkins quote with you, but you beat me to it. This is what happens when one is stuck with dial-up for a weekend. :)
ReplyDeleteI am ready and willing to sacrifice episcopal tea parties!
ReplyDeletePaul, of course not. What kind of sacrifice is giving up a tea party? They want you!
WE, thanks for the thought. You'd have a hard time beating the rabbit anyway.
Well, they bloody can't have me!
ReplyDeleteHave you read section 131 of the latest draft of the reflection paper? Self-indulgent crap of a high and aggravated nature!
ReplyDelete"The moratoria cover three separate but related issues: Episcopal ordinations of partnered homosexual people, the blessing of same-sex unions; cross-border incursions by bishops. There is widespread support for the moratoria. This could be the “generous act of love” the communion is looking for. The moratoria could be taken as part of a sign of the bishops’ affection, trust and goodwill towards the Archbishop of Canterbury and one another."
“Generous act of love”. Sounds more like narcissitic self-abuse to me.
"The moratoria cover three separate but related issues: Episcopal ordinations of partnered homosexual people, the blessing of same-sex unions; cross-border incursions by bishops.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm confused (honestly): 1) the problem is "partnered" homosexuals, not those without partners? Really? Why? And is there really a groundswell across TEC to ordain such persons? How many are there, after all? Or is this: "Just don't do it again"? Which means Bishop Robinson can be invited next time?
2) Okay, I guess. I mean, that is a continuing issue, I suppose. Don't agree, but it is ongoing.
3) Is this really an issue for a "moratorium"? Isn't this more an issue of polity, pure and simple? The first two involve, ostensibly, theological issues. But this is simply keeping the institutional house in order. I mean, unless the Anglican Communion doesn't have a polity at all, in which case they're just like the UCC!
Which is really weird.....
If Abraham had been a Lambeth bishop he would have gone ahead and sacrificed Isaac because, after all, he had clearly understood that God had at one time asked for that.
ReplyDeleteWell, they bloody can't have me!
ReplyDeletePaul, I'll stand with you and battle to the death.
Thank you for passing on these very profound insights.
ReplyDeleteI could live with Mark Harris' covenant draft:
ReplyDeleteA Covenant among Autonomous Anglican Churches:
"In as much as God has seen fit to encourage friendship and fellowship among the churches whose understanding of the faith, the scripture, the sacraments and the common life of prayer and church governance was formed from the experience of the Church of England, we the undersigned pledge, in so far as we are able, to constant prayer for one another, to companionship in mission and evangelism, and to hold each other in mutual regard.
We pledge to honor the baptism of persons from every church so pledged, to accept ministers of the Gospel from any of our churches in so far as our own canons permit, and to extend sacramental ministry to members of every church so pledged provided they follow the godly counsel of the church in which they participate as regards preparation for reception of sacramental ministry.
We acknowledge that divisions exist among the various Christian Churches including those who will enter this covenant. We believe that all pledges of full communion are limited by the realities of these divisions and therefore pledge to continually maintain the highest level of communion possible and to work constantly for greater understanding of the work each church is called by God to undertake."
Or better yet, I like what Bishop Martin Barahona of the Diocese of Central America said:
...The Covenant. Why do we need another covenant? We have the Baptismal Covenant. We have the creeds. What else do we need?”
Bishop Barahona got it right.
ReplyDeleteIt is not up to the community to decide what God's word is. I don't even knoe where that questoin came from. God is well able to reveal Herself when, to whom, and in what way She chooses. Deciding what that revelation is, is not our job. The community, and each one of us, are to listen quietly and then to live accordingly. We don't decide when and wehere God speaks.
ReplyDeleteGod could just as well speak through a stone as a book or a spirit or silence even possibly an archbishop. But none of those things in themselves is the word of God. They are only instruments. The Word, the real live Word, is already here and in full bloom. It's in each individual heart and it's as individual as the hearts it's written on.
Let's give God a little credit for having more than one thing to say.
Such questions as these concern me because they inevetibly lead to more talking, talking, talking, talking... while gay men and lesbians, faithful Christians, live ther lives and then die in the vain hope that the church they love will recognize them as full human beings. How many more people will die in second-class status because a few hard heads want to declare something the WORD OF GOD?
RMJ, what you need to understand about Anglicanism darling is that we do not decide these issues. We are a people of non-deciders. By it's nature Anglicanism does not arrive at final answers. We allow questions to live with us, to form and inform us, and often to toement us. But, in deciding, coming to a final conclusion, you annaliate the questin and that is a most UNAnglican thing to do. You are corret to say that there ARE concrete answers. The Baptists, Luterans, Methodists, Romans all have concrete answers. Our only answers are in the creeds, the Baptisma covenant and, for some, the Quadralateral. That's it. There are no more conclusions, no final arbiter, and there will be no accross the board solution to the problem of all those pesky homos claiming to be Children of the Most High. As long as there is Anglicansm there will be ambiguity and I thank God for it.
People form paroishes are sent to diocesan conclaves, and those are sent to GC. But, they are not sent as representatives. That's a different thing. They go as delegates. So, actually, you are not represented. You simply voted to send someone who you beleved was wise and would make good decisions. It's not representation.
The polity in TEC however is generally speaking more representative than say that of Uganda or Nigeria. Lay people have a voice and many decisions are taken by vote. But it is not a democrasy, only an organization which often employs voting as a means of decision making. These are typically decisions like what color carpet to get and whether or not to accept the bidget. Not big things.
The only answer is to keep engaging the question. And I suppose that applies even if you're continually being called a beast and stuff.
Paul - Me either baby. Me eihter.
Um... I have noted the veey bad spelling, punctuation, and typgin of that last post. You all will cut me some slack this morning, wotn' you?
ReplyDeleteOK/ I still can't frekin' type so... That's it for me.
If the Much Holier Than the Rest of Us Right takes over the Episcopal Church and publishes their long proscription lists, then I'll just stay right where I am. They'll have to throw me out.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that I will change is that I'll start bringing a newspaper and a bucket of chicken to church to keep me busy during the sermon.
Oh, here we go again with the eternal catch 22 for the GLBT crowd...
ReplyDelete"We don't like your lifestyle....but if you start acting like married straight people and being responsible, we don't like that either b/c marriage is about opposite sex couples." aaaagggggghhhhh
Jesus asks us to lay OUR burdens down. He doesn't ask us to dump them on the shoulders of the nearest GLBT person and say, "Here, hold this, wouldja?"
Lindy, I have read posts on your blog and Rmj's blog that shed light for me on passages from the Scriptures. All on my own, perhaps I would not have stumbled upon those insights. Of course, God can speak to each of us without intermediaries, but isn't it possible that our brothers and sisters have wisdom to offer?
ReplyDeleteI could not agree with you more that the Word of God is a person, not a book. To think otherwise is, to me, a form of idolatry.
The delegates to conventions are no more representative of me than my two senators. David Vitter(R) does not represent me at all. Mary Landrieu(D) represents my views on occasion, but on other occasions, she does not. Yet, we call ours a representative government.
In like manner, we call the bishops and delegates representatives, even though they may not represent us at all. I see this as semantics - how we use labels. I don't quite understand the problem that you and Rmj seem to have with using the term "representative". Call them delegates, if that suits you better. That's their official churchly name. When we elect them we delegate to them the power to act in our name.
We don't have final answers, not this side of our arrival in the heavenly kingdom. We do our best to love God and love our neighbors in the earthly kingdom as best we can.
Lindy, you just may win my prize for the comment with the worst typing evah, love. ;o)
Counterlight, will you share your fried chicken?
Jesus asks us to lay OUR burdens down. He doesn't ask us to dump them on the shoulders of the nearest GLBT person and say, "Here, hold this, wouldja?"
Kirke, exactly. Which brings us full circle around to my title, "Whose Sacrifice?"