A diocese in Los Angeles has elected only the second openly gay bishop in the Anglican Church, reigniting an issue that has caused deep division.
A diocese in Los Angeles has elected only the second openly gay bishop in the Anglican Church, reigniting an issue that has caused deep division.
Kendall, it is interesting that you pose the current dilemma of The Episcopal Church as being one of Justice vs. Truth. One might say, “How can justice and truth be in tension? Is not justice itself the truth?”
I come to this question in the midst of reading Walter Brueggemann’s essay “Social Justice and Purity: Two Trajectories” in his magnum opus, Theology of the Old Testament, pages 187-196. He suggests that Justice and Purity–or Holiness–are major themes of Yahweh that live in tension with one another.
I see an applicability of some of his idea to the current dilemma. The Anglican Communion has never been greatly disturbed by counter-biblical lifestyles in the laity of its neighboring provinces, and has been scarcely more than irritated by counter-biblical lifestyles in in its neighboring priests.
But an open, counter-biblical lifestyle on the part of a bishop of the Communion is perceived as a threat. I suggest, that threat is based on a conflict with the holiness of God and his call for his people to be holy. As Anglicans we express our concern for the holiness of God through our worship style, and arguably, through our setting aside of ordained persons to keep and exemplify that holiness.
In the Old Testament these protections of holiness are enunciated most clearly in the ritual laws of Leviticus. In the New Testament perhaps we might hear this concern when Jesus says, “You are my friends if you do what I command you.”
Not much can be done within the perspect of a four-minute radio show. Would you be willing to expand on your thoughts here?
Rev. Canon Dr. Harmon, you have hit several nails on the head. Your assessment of the confabulation between Jefferts-Schori and the ABC, for example, and your critique of the false dichotomy created by those who would have justice without truth (which is, of course, not justice) is helpful and appreciated.
Both KJS and the President of the House of Deputies must think that people have the attention span of a gnat if they think that they can get away with such a blatant lie (in the interview you very charitably said “witness of incoherence”), saying one thing in one context (July Convention, i.e., yes to a gay agenda) and saying the opposite in another (what was written to the ABC, i.e., no to a gay agenda). The recent episcopal election of a partnered lesbian confirms that TEC leadership never had any intention of restraint regarding the issue of ordaining gays.
The word of KJS is entirely suspect, impotent in fact. KJS’ credibility as a presiding bishop has been utterly destroyed by the confusion her contradictory actions have brought to TEC. Surely there is a canonical provision that can be employed to censure (and/or remove) a Presiding Bishop who has repeatedly obfuscated the truth and fostered disunity by flirting with the canons (e.g., manipulating canonical form by accusing senior clergy of abandoning communion despite documents that reject KJS’ claims; engaging in ecclesiastical gerrymandering by rejecting duly elected bishops because they are tradition-minded by citing procedural problems while turning a blind eye to similar slight procedural issues when liberal bishops are elected) and lying to other primates within the Communion on matters affecting the entire Communion? If so, what would it take to engage such a provision or process and what are the chances of such a challenge succeeding?
I understand if the questions might be too much of an imposition and an answer is not possible due to time or other constraints.
Of course justice and truth can be in tension. There has been many a truth that has not been justice. It is a truth that my government blackmailed me into taking a prescription insurance policy or be penalized for each year that I didn’t subscribe. That is truth. Is it justice?
Oh and I might add…….my government would not have gotten the benefit of the penality….the insurance company would profit…….
Kendall,
1. I do not see it as a “witness of incoherence” on the part of TEC leadership. This implies inadequate communication. I believe it was intentional obfuscation.
2. To weigh one good (truth) against another (justice) is an inaccurate portrayal of the problem. This is not a justice issue at all. How does advocacy for partnered G/L Bishops come close the level of a genuine justice issue of rights of the unborn?
Ummm. I think you all need to listen to his interview again.
Kendall championed the side of the truth as the Church has understood it for centuries. HOWEVER, those revisionists who are for openly homosexual clergy,etc have always pursed their goals as a “matter of (social) justice”.
The witness of incoherence comes for the incoherent message of GC voting for resolutions and the PB and Pres of House of Deputies writing to the ABC and saying exactly the OPPOSITE and “nothing has changed in our canons”. THAT is indeed confusing and incoherent- intentional obfuscation? I will let others chime in on that decision.