Remembering who we are

[angli_fan]

[from Episcopal Life Online]

By Tom Ehrich

When I heard that the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles had elected a lesbian as suffragan bishop, my reaction was, "Here we go again."

I knew the anti-gay lobby would kick into overdrive with dire warnings about violating "biblical principles" and offending the Anglican Communion. I knew partisans on the other side would celebrate her election as an epic victory.

The warnings are nonsense, of course, and not at all supported by the entirety of biblical ethics. Nor do casual observers understand that the Anglican Communion is a tired and artificial construct of the post-colonial era, not a form of divinity. The celebrations over an ordination decision, meanwhile, sound tinny in an era of recession and expanding warfare.

My reaction was weariness: once again, my church would be known for nothing more enlightening than sexuality. It's better than our former reputation as "the country club at prayer," but it's no closer to the truth.

Yes, we have gay bishops, gay clergy, and gay lay members. So do other denominations, even the most conservative. So do other fields of endeavor, from banking to bridge building, from cutting hair to cutting federal budgets.

I just wish we were known for something more than sex.

Things like the hospitals we founded, for example, or the schools and colleges, the homeless shelters and food banks, and support groups for the wounded. I wish more people saw the missionary work we do among Native Americans, the ball fields we build for needy children, the teams that follow storms and do unsung ministry, from patching roofs to patching lives.

More at:
ecusa.anglican.org/80050_117858_ENG_HTM.htm

[bostonian]

So do other fields of endeavor, from banking to bridge building, from cutting hair to cutting federal budgets.

The difference, of course, is that your hair dresser isn't the spiritual leader of a congregation. Your banker can defy the Word of God without being a hypocrite.

[Uriel]

Hypocrisy is the pretense of having an attitude publicly approved of. If a gay person - clergy, banker or street sweeper - is open and honest, there is no hypocrisy.

[bostonian]

Except that "gay bishop" is an oxymoron and "gay banker" is not.

In order to serve as a bishop you necessarily need to understand God's Word. That is part of the job.

The Bible couldn't be clearer about homosexuality. The hypocrisy comes in when a person claims to understand the Word of God but pretends not to understand that "gay bishop" is a contradiction in terms. Those two things cannot be reconciled.

[Uriel]

I understand what your opinion is. I just don't agree with it. "Gay bishop" is not an oxymoron as far as I am concerned. I question your phrase "pretends not to understand." No pretense - rather, disagreement.

Hope you are enjoying your Christmas!

[bostonian]

From my perspective, this falls more into the realm of fact than opinion. The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination in many many places. That much cannot be disputed.

How a gay pastor can stand up on Sunday morning and read that Bible with the pretense of any kind of authority is beyond me.

[Uriel]

Many things are beyond us - that's okay. You don't have to understand everything.

[bostonian]

That "I don't understand everything" is not the issue. If a pastor stood up and said that Jesus Christ never existed he would be laughed out the church. We would simply cite the Bible and tell him he is wrong. This is no different.

[Sojourner]

"We would simply cite the Bible and tell him he is wrong. This is no different." We could cite Ps. 137 against the children of our enemies, too. However, many of us would not. In like manner, many of us do not interpret the totality of scripture to categorically denounce homosexuality as innately evil. In other words, there are many in TEC who, as Uriel suggests, do not agree with your opinion.

[bostonian]

Well enjoy your homosexual church. I'm leaving to worship God.

[Uriel]

Well, I try to avoid sarcasm; so I will just say that I imagine that if you find the church - exclusive and self-righteous - that you are looking for, you will enjoy it for a while. I think such churches are plentiful these days. And you will - you have already done - create a God to worship who agrees with you.

You will enjoy it for a while - maybe a long while. But I do observe that the movements founded on exclusion tend to exclude ever more narrowly - I wonder where this will lead you in the future?

[srigdon]

I do observe that the movements founded on exclusion tend to exclude ever more narrowly

What observations are those? What are your examples?

[Sojourner]

One need only look at the extreme Anabaptists (various Amish groups), the German Baptist Brethren and the Conservative Holiness churches to find support of Uriel's observation. These groups were based on exclusion and exceptionalism, and within that exclusion and exceptionalism existed their tendency to continue to search increasingly for more and more purity. The search for purity generally never finds purity; rather, it usually results in drawing the circle tighter and tighter, excluding still more from the sacred inner circle.

There are, I believe, 37 identifiable groups which exist as the result of self-exclusion from the Episcopal Church. The number of splinters are now as numerous as those from Methodism and the Baptists. Once exclusion is a foundational proposition, further exclusion becomes easier and easier.

[Sojourner]

Another area in which exclusivity can be demonstrated is in a study of class, especially hereditary class structures, e.g., Europe prior to the 20th century or 20th century India. In these situations, the upper classes benefitted greatly by the maintenance of these systems.

I think the larger problem is not the existence of exclusivity; rather, it is the foundation upon which the excluive behavior is based. If exclusion is a method of identifying difference, then I see no basic problem. However, when exclusion is, a priori, based on a qualitative selection, i. e., something or someone is "better" than something else, I believe there is real danger.

[srigdon]

How do these examples demonstrate Uriel's thesis 'tend to'? I can think of much bigger organizations based on exclusion which are wildly successful, can't you?

Are they more relevant because they illlustrate what happens in small groups as opposed to big ones?