Meanwhile, most of the media reports are about two resolutions that were passed: one that resolved to gather resources toward developing liturgies for same-gender blessings, and the other, D025 as it’s known in official parlance, that is commonly being described as a resolution to “end the ban on gay bishops.” It is actually about quite a bit more than gay bishops, as its title, “Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion” indicates. Anyway, this Episcopal Life online piece is a pretty good place to start if you want a basic sense of what’s been going on without all the hysteria and hyperbole that is generally clouding the discussion on the internet.
The most interesting aspect of this story for me is that beneath D025 is a very specific theological framework, one that depends on an understanding of baptism as full and complete membership in the church. If the question of the place of gay and lesbian people is framed as an issue of “rights,” it can easily be trumped by other critical concerns, such as the importance of our place within the Anglican Communion or the competing claims of certain Scripture passages and the various ways we read them. However, once the framing of the argument moved from “equal rights” to “full inclusion in the body of Christ” it seems to me it was inevitable that General Convention would take the position it did.
My own sense is that nobody has a “right” to become a deacon or priest, let alone a bishop, but anyone can enter into a conversation with the church about exploring a sense of vocation, or of being called by God into a particular office. Our baptism is what empowers us to have this conversation, and it can only be an authentic one if the outcome is truly not known by either side before it begins. There are no levels to church membership once a person is baptized, so there should be no office from which a baptized person is automatically excluded, at least not by virtue of gender, race, sexual orientation, or the like.
This article does indeed proclaim the leadership of the EC’s understanding of Baptism…but it is not a proper or biblical understanding of baptism.
Sadly, one must live into their baptism by renouncing the world, flesh, and the devil and the three fold affirmation to Christ…if one embraces their sin or sinful ways over Christ they are not living into their Baptismal covenant indeed they are renouncing it.
Nor can they respect the dignity of all human beings but affirming what God has declared as sin….but that is what they EC would have us all believe.
It is an over emphasis on baptism and a loss of the understanding of confirmation….
They are both needed. Sadly, if one is baptized, then all the sacraments and position of the church are now open to you, even if you live a life that embraces sin over the way of Christ.
This is really so sad. Yet, it is what has been held up for years…I am baptized you cannot deny me. Whether the article wishes to admit it or not, this is simply another way of asserting rights over against call. The author does not see the inherent contradiction in her argument.
Ms Dolan misses completely the aspect of [b]discipleship[/b]. When she says [i]”no office from which a baptized person is automatically excluded”[/i] she ignores all that Paul and others wrote most clearly about the role of discipleship, particularly in leaders.
My problem with Gene Robinson as bishop, to choose the iconic example, is that his behaviour and chosen lifestyle — plus absolute disinterest in repentance — constitute rather compelling [i]prima facie[/i] evidence of miserably flawed discipleship.
Most of what I’ve seen coming out of the organised parts of TEC also falls pretty clearly into the same category, and I’m not at all interested in their attempts to talk themselves out of something they’ve [i]behaved[/i] their way into …
Tut. You should all recognize this for what it is, another form of spin. A nd B and C didn’t work, so now we will try D. There is no merit in this argument; it is simply another attempt at manipulation. L
Pamela must have a different Bible than the one I have. Mine has quite a few New Testament references to specific qualifications for leadership positions within the church.
[blockquote]There are no levels to church membership once a person is baptized, so there should be no office from which a baptized person is automatically excluded, at least not by virtue of gender, race, sexual orientation, or the like.[/blockquote]
Does “the like” include sinful behavior or teaching of false doctrine promoting same?
I hadn’t realized that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution had been incorporated into the Baptismal vows of the ’79 BCP. Does it only apply when interstate commerce is involved?