"It's a clean sweep for the liberal agenda in the Episcopal Church," said David Virtue, editor of VirtueOnline.org, a conservative Web site. "The orthodox are finished."So begins the NYTimes article on the annual
(Too harsh, you say? Well, here's how the Episcopal Church describes its own General Convention:
Resolutions proposed for discussion at convention are referred to legislative committees, which consider, amalgamate and perfect them before presenting them on the floor of convention. Legislative committees hold hearings on legislation at which the following can speak: deputy, registered alternate or registered visitor. These are held in convention hotels near the Convention Center.Honestly, I've been following the Twitter hashtag, but there's so much insider lingo that even I, a pretty educated observer, cannot possibly understand what they're tweeting about.)
No, wait, let me say one more thing. When did we come so far off the rails that the words "convention," "legislative," and "committees" become constitutive of our promulgation of the gospel? My favorite tweet came a couple days ago from a clergywoman ("rev" was part of her Twitter handle!) that simply read, "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGH!!!!"
OK, now to the issue at hand. The Episcopal Church has voted to allow all persons to be ordained, regardless of their sexual orientation. Many will see this as an inevitable slide into radical-anything-goes-relativism by a small and shrinking mainline denomination -- which has, it must be noted, a cultural significance that is way disproportionate to it's numbers. Why? Because it's populated primarily by rich, white people. There are roughly as many Episcopalians in the US as Jews, but no Jew has been elected President of the US. There have been eleven Episcopalian Presidents, more than any other denomination.
The result of this vote is that more dioceses and parishes will go bishop-shopping. Thinking their own bishop too liberal, they'll look to another diocese in the States, in Africa, or one of the new, non-geographical dioceses for oversight.
But, of course, this is a breach of episcopal polity. The episcopal system of church government is fundamentally geographical, and incumbent on submission to the bishop's authority, whether the bishop be appointed (Catholic, Orthodox) or elected (Episcopal). When you start shopping around for a bishop with whom you agree, you are, by definition, no longer operating under an episcopal system. But you're not congregational or presbyterian either. You're just broken.
Anyway, back to that "the orthodox are finished" quote from the NYTimes. I wrote for Patheos that one's stance on homosexuality has become the new Shibboleth for conservatives.
So Evangelicals have turned their gaze on a new shibboleth -- gay marriage -- and the correlations are clear: replace the oversized placards of aborted fetuses with Westboro Baptist's "God Hates Fags" signs at military funerals; swap out Operation Rescue for the National Organization for Marriage; exchange James Dobson for, um, James Dobson.
Tim Dalrymple and others have taken issue. "No!" they protest, "Evangelicals don't do this. This is not a question of one's orthodoxy or one's salvation. Don't caricature us like that."
But then, right their in the Gray Lady, one of their number says it as clear as can be: If you don't stand with him against gay ordination/marriage/rights, you are not orthodox. Because, of course, David Virtue is the arbiter of orthodoxy. Just look at his picture -- he's wearing an academic gown, so he must know what he's talking about.
***
OK, snarkiness aside, I have a bunch of friends who are Episcopal (since I fit their profile). I know that this week has been probably painful for many of them. I, too, grieve for the coming Anglican schism.
But I implore them to look beyond the gay issue. The bigger issue is that they employ a medieval form of church polity strange hybrid of medieval (bishops, dioceses, sextons) and modern (legislation, amendments, committees) polities, which will inevitably fail in this postmodern, wiki-world.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I've got Asperger's Syndrome, which is a form of autism, so if it was just me I'd much rather have the feudalism.
I see two claims strung together with a conjunction, but I'm befuddled as to how they are connected to each other.
In any case, your complaining about having your First Amendment Rights violated (by gays having the right to marry of all things) proves that you probably don't like feudalism as much as you think you would. But it's always easier to whine about liberal democracy while enjoying its benefits...
Anon: "I see two claims strung together with a conjunction, but I'm befuddled as to how they are connected to each other."
Feudalism is a status-quo form of government; it seeks not change but rather eternal sameness. Can you not understand how, for an autistic, that might be a powerful draw, far more powerful than the chaos of liberty?
"In any case, your complaining about having your First Amendment Rights violated (by gays having the right to marry of all things) proves that you probably don't like feudalism as much as you think you would. But it's always easier to whine about liberal democracy while enjoying its benefits..."
Well, even here the two are linked- the right to free association should rightly include a right to free disassociation, correct? And if one is afraid of change.....
"There won't be any "storm troopers in Churches" (Catholic or otherwise) insisting on them performing same-sex marriages. At least not until the divorced (who would re-marry) get their wishes granted first and they've been in line a whole lot longer than gay folk."
In Canada, Catholic Parishes have already been sued for both, and it's obvious the indoctination attitude of the homosexual movement will stop at nothing less than recruitment, so maybe not so much of a fantasy.
"And your suggestion that gay people rooming with str8s would result in a "midnight rape" is merely more vile hysteria, not to mention false (isn't bearing false witness a "sin" in your church?). I'm gay and had several college roommates and never a hint of impropriety. Your suggestion is disgusting, revolting and so very not Christian."
"Vile hysteria" it may be, but then if so, you should have no problems forcing lesbians to live with men in college dorms as well, since it's exactly the same situation. I've been hit on enough by your kind misjudging my autistic behavior as homosexuality to know there is an equivalent level of sexual aggressive behavior in homosexuality as in heterosexuality. Are you denying that it would EVER happen?
Tony, I don't see how the words of David Virtue support your claim. I acknowledged that there presumably exist people who would rather remove you from the church if you do not accept the same stance on homosexuality. Yet you paint capital-E Evangelicalism as a whole with this brush, and that's simply too broad a generalization.
Even so, Virtue is not saying that those who disagree with him are not Christian, or not true Episcopelians. He's saying that the "liberal" agenda has prevailed and the 'orthodox' agenda (which is probably his way of saying conservative, much as liberals prefer to say 'progressive') is decisively defeated.
If you imagine this proves your point...well, I simply don't see it.
There is the issue of intellectual honesty, in acknowledging complexity where your personal and rhetorical interests would lead you to prefer simplicity. (It doesn't pack as much punch to say that *some* conservative evangelicals would not consider you an evangelical in truth if you accept gay marriage.) But there's also an issue here just as the body of Christ. I believe that you are a sincere person of faith, even though you disagree with me on this issue. Do *you* believe that *I* am a sincere person of faith? Will you give *me* the benefit of the doubt? If so, then don't you owe it to me as a fellow Christian, and don't you owe it to Christ as the head of the Church, not to misrepresent or disparage another part of the body of Christ?
What you think about gay marriage is not especially important to me. What is important to me is that we shape a form of Christian discourse that is charitable and fair. It's common practice to misrepresent and caricature the opposing side in secular political discourse--but it doesn't have to be for us.
Husband: "You are one ungracious SOB, that's for sure. Your comments about my sister (whom you know not at all) were insulting, and un-Christian."
Only from your point of view. Let's examine them from an ORTHODOX worldview instead of a morally relativistic one, shall we?
"Like you get to decide that for others. How on earth would you know, since you don't even know the circumstances. Who died and made you Judge?"
I'm not the Judge, Jesus Christ our Once and Future King is, and he's the one who said Divorce was a sin.
"Her first husband beat her. I hope you rot in he11."
I might, gladly, if my Lord Jesus Christ sends me there. Having said that, if her husband was beating her, that's a mental illness and reason to commit him to an insane asylum, not a reason for divorce. "In Sickness and in Health" says the vows- why did she have to break *her* vow just because *he* got sick?
"Or hey, maybe it's YOU that isn't Christian. Christ is love. There's not an iota of love in your condemnatory, judgemental, hate-filled supposition."
Christ isn't Love, Christ is God's Word. Yet another way in which Protestantism had twisted and faked Christianity. GOD is Love, but he's not unjudgemental love, he's not unconditional love. Sin exists, much as we sinners wish it weren't so, and God's love is tough love, wanting something better for us than we want for ourselves.
"I believe this disparagement is against B'net's ROCs. You Catholics may not get divorced, but I'd say an annullment after 28 years of (non-)marriage and producing a coupla sons is a neat loophole. If my Church had loopholes. See how easy it is to get nasty with the 'other'?"
I agree that annulment after 28 years of non-marriage and producing a couple of sons is a loophole that should be closed. I've in fact argued against annulment before, except in cases of infertility.
"Where on earth did you get the idea that I "only believe in non-reproductive marriage"?"
Because that's the only form of marriage you have supported in this argument so far.
"I know you make things up a lot, but that's just (another) outright lie. And here all this time I thought you 'followed the teachings of Christ' (who said you shouldn't bear false witness - you seem to keep forgetting that one)."
You don't even know what the teachings of Christ are. They aren't the ten commandments- those were the teachings of Moses. And based on the evidence you've produced thus far, I've got to say that you've not only failed to convince me that homosexuality isn't sinful, but you've failed to convince me that you are a thinking human being who is capable of examining evidence dispasionately and from the other side of the equation. In other words, you've failed the Turing Test. Any hatred you feel is all on your side, I can assure you, because emotions are not contained in this media.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.