Arrogance
The Bishop of Durham claims to speak for the House of Bishops and to know the mind of the Archbishop of Canterbury better than the Archbishop knows himself. He takes it upon himself to clarify and expand upon what the Archbishop ‘really meant’.
....
Durham has a solution to the problems of complexity and manipulation. ‘The ABC himself is now the main person, if not the only person, in a position to give a clear and authoritative answer’. The bishop has spoken. The Archbishop of Canterbury must take unilateral, authoritative action now, and the action must be what Durham has decided is for the best. But as the Archbishop has made very clear, he doesn’t have any legal, canonical authority over the Communion and neither does he want it.
....
Durham refers to ‘certain habits and styles of life’ which are left behind when people rise to new life in Christ (para. 6). LGBT people do not have ‘certain habits’ which are different from the habits of heterosexuals. Nor do we have distinctive ‘styles of life’. His language is deliberately chosen to demean LGBT people. I have met hundreds of LGBT Christians whose lives are characterised by holiness and a renewed humanity. The bishop cannot know the people of his own diocese well if he hasn’t discerned holiness in many of his partnered lesbian and gay clergy and laity. Perhaps, like other bishops I know, he is blind to their presence.
....
In a confusing paragraph Durham writes about the categories of chastity, celibacy and a weak or negligible sexual drive as if they are alternative choices for Christians. Chastity – fidelity in love and sexual relationships - is for all, as he rightly says - the same for lesbian and gay people and heterosexuals. It is totally distinct from the call to celibacy, a charism given to very few people, and utterly different from having a weak or negligible sex drive. I know what the bishop really wants to say – no sex for gay people – God doesn’t approve. Why can’t be honest?
....
Prayer
The Bishop of Durham concludes by naming the main priority for the Communion as prayer. I agree 100% with his commitment to prayer and with the intentions he outlines:
‘Prayer for the church; for our beloved Communion and the many other Christians with whom we seek to deepen fellowship; for Archbishop Rowan; for wisdom, courage, clarity and vision; for God’s glory, the extension of his kingdom, and the power of the gospel and the Spirit at work in hearts, lives, communities and throughout our world’.
Changing Attitude also prays for these intentions and for the full inclusion of LGBT people in the church of which we are already full members, though disenfranchised and condemned in many parts of the Communion.
I once stopped attending an adult class in our church which consisted of a set of DVDs by Bishop Tom, the first of which had to do with how inclusive Jesus was, associating with all manner of what were considered the undesirables of his day. The content of the teaching was quite good, but I was aware of Bishop Tom's views of LGTB folks, and I could not watch and listen to him on Jesus' all-embracing love for everyone, knowing what I knew.
As I said to Colin at CA in the comments to Part 1:
"Colin, you have no idea how tiresome a good many of us in the US find Bishop Tom's bashing of gays and lesbians and the Episcopal Church. Thanks for your essay."
However, I join with Bishop Tom in his prayer and with Colin in his addition to the prayer.
Re "But as the Archbishop has made very clear, he doesn’t have any legal, canonical authority over the Communion and neither does he want it."
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, the only responsibility to the Anglican Communion that the Archbishop of Canterbury has is to invite to the Lambeth Conference all bishops in the Anglican Communion, and Archbishop Williams has already failed at that. So he can spend his time just repenting until either he leaves office or it's time to send out invitations for Lambeth 2018. Any communications from his office that do not constitute such repentance are superfluous.
Any communications from his office that do not constitute such repentance are superfluous.
ReplyDeletePaul, you're right. the ABC didn't even get the invitations to Lambeth right. I can't get over Bishop Gene being locked out at the gathering. What a grave mistake that decision was and how lacking in grace and hospitality!
And what was the ABC's reward?
I have also read some of Bishop Tom's writings. He does talk of the inclusiveness of Jesus. I wonder if he reads or understands what he writes?
ReplyDeleteTwo Auntees, it appears to be inclusiveness only up to a point with Bp. Tom.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated Colin Coward's assessment of Tom Wright's arguments; I think that was where his posts were strongest. Unfortunately he was unable to restrain himself from trying to psychoanalyse Wright, which to me is unhelpful (and largely educated guesswork anyway).
ReplyDeleteI also found his forms of address rather medieval - referring to Wright and Williams as 'Durham' and 'Canterbury'. I know they are members of the British House of Lords and this is customary there, but surely in this day and age we Christians can get past this? I'm not sure that the residents of Canterbury and Durham would be amused at this usage!
As for Tom not grasping the implications of his own preaching of Jesus' inclusivity - well, my guess is that few of us grasp all the implications of our beliefs, and even fewer of us preachers grasp all the implications of what we say. As I said on my own blog, I've found Tom Wright to be a brilliant New Testament scholar whose books have opened up huge windows into the meaning of the Bible for me. I'm sad that his growing role as the mouthpiece for the Anglican right is having the effect of marginalising his scholarship. He should never have accepted the appointment as Bishop of Durham. He should have followed the example of an earlier Anglican evangelical, John R.W. Stott, who was offered several bishoprics over the course of his career but turned them all down, saying that God had called him to a life as a preacher and writer and that episcopal responsibilities would only distract him from that calling.
My two cents' worth (sorry about the length!).
Tim, I've heard progressive priests say that they make use of Bp. Tom's scholarly writings in their preaching. My rector admires his work.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching and listening to his DVD, I was struck by a such a sense of dissonance by his teaching on inclusiveness that it put me off badly. I know that I've had my own moments of hypocrisy, but I knew that I could not have contributed to the discussion in the class in any way that would not have been seen as disruptive, so rather than do that, I left.
I have a blog partly so I don't harangue others in the congregation at the coffee hour with my views which are generally not shared by most of them. I can say what I want to say here, and those who don't like it are not forced to read.
I think you're quite right that Bp. Tom should have turned down the office of bishop. The ABC should have turned down the offer of Canterbury, as he also seems particularly unsuited to his office.