Giles Fraser argues that the American Anglican bishops have sacrificed justice to expediency and unity with bigots when they agreed, at the pleading of the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, to approve no further elections of openly gay bishops and not officially to sanction the blessing of gay relationships. But things may well be worse than he thinks. They haven’t really sacrificed anything except the truth about what they believe and intend.
The one thing we know about all these agreements is that they are signed with fingers crossed. The American bishops who signed a paper saying they will take account of the wishes of the rest of the Communion don’t actually believe for a moment they were wrong about homosexuals, or that the wider church is right. They just believe that they have seen an opportunity to outmanoeuvre their opponents.
I desire that there was one whit of evidence from New Orleans to promote a contrary view. Alas, one or two (depends on whose count at the time you have heard) dissenters from the steam roller, boiler-plated response do NOT constitute such. No minority report and apparently total capitulation by “Windsor” and “Camp Allen” bishops do not give a foothold on the precipice of disagreement with these remarks.
And we have the ususal responders saying it all change in GC2009 to the totally inclusive General Convention Church ‘theology’ of GC2009. IT’s advocates are already affirming their intent to do as they have done and WILL by political machination and the debasement of language continue to do.
Mr Brown has produced a rambling, pointless essay. It is simply a container filled with dismissive comments.
Kendall, could you consider making it clearer when you are commenting on the coverage of someone else vs. excerpting their insights ?
I was moved by this section (of course omitted here):
I have never been persuaded that Jesus was gay, as some do believe. But there is no doubt that he too was the outsider, despised and rejected. He also was the victim of official religious persecution. Which is why the other passage that today’s Christians ought to give some thought to is the one from St Matthew’s gospel that goes: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”
[i]“Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family… ‘[/i]
MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY????
I’ll remember this when people say that ‘brothers’ in reference to Jesus’ family meant LITERAL brothers. It’s the same word as in the passage above. 😉
bob carlton,
we don’t despise gay people, much as your side would like to believe. just as i wouldn’t want a priest or bishop who was actively committing adultery to stand as moral leader to the church, i think actively gay people should not either.
please feel free to indicate where in the Bible Jesus says ‘hey people, just keep on keeping on. don’t bother about that pesky sin thing…my Father had that all blown out of proportion!’
has it really gone that far on your side for some to claim that Jesus was gay???
“The pension fund trumps theology every time.” No truer words were ever spoken. Whether revisionist or reasserter, liberal or conservative, progressive or traditionalist, it’s all about the pension.
ncidentally, LibJ, the language about Jesus’s family is unusually clear. I posted the Greek earlier.
The context makes the translation, if not certain, then so highly probable that contesting it requires torturing the text. The text asks if those speaking do not know this family, Joseph and Mary. Since the question is explicit about knowing “the family,” then the identity of brothers and sisters is impossible to contest without torturing the text. Occam’s razor applies here too. Is this circumstantial evidence? I suppose, in a precious way, but as Henry Thoreau said, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when one finds a trout in milk.” And so we must conclude that Jesus had brothers and sisters and that Mary, therefore, cannot be “Ever Virgin Mary.”
Larry
Andrew B seems to be committed to believing the worst of everybody.
I find the text in bold particularly depressing. He apparently believes an honest disagreement is impossible, or at least that working together while disagreeing is dishonest. I should hope the American bishops think they’re right about homosexuality–if they don’t, we’re enduring a lot of pain for no good purpose. But as long as they are committed to not consenting to another gay bishop until GC09 they are not “signing with fingers crossed.” They are making a space to account for the disagreement of others in the communion. Why is this so hard to understand?
It’s the “they are committed to not consenting to another gay bishop until GC09” that we have a problem with. We don’t want any more gay bishops, period! Why is THAT so hard to understand?
First, I was responding to AB’s assertion that the bishops were lying. They weren’t. It’s not their fault that they weren’t promising what he wants.
Second, you, like him, are refusing to allow for honest disagreement. Immediate capitulation or divorce are your options. The bishops are saying, “We don’t agree with you but we do agree not to act on our beliefs for a while.” If that’s still not acceptable, fine–but don’t pretend anybody ever promised you something more.
And don’t pretend that either the Windsor document or the Primate’s communique asked for anything more.