“Is God calling us to a new understanding of human sexuality?”
That’s the been the key question ever since Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, was confirmed as bishop in the Episcopal Church, according to the Rev. Frank Wade of Washington, D.C.
Wade was chaplain to the House of Deputies when the General Convention consented to Robinson’s election as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003. He spoke Saturday to about 150 people attending a conference at the Middleton Place conference center sponsored by the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina. The conference was organized to urge the local diocese to remain active in the Episcopal Church.
“God does call us to new understanding,” Wade said. “It’s a possibility.”
So let me get this straight. It is a possibility. Ah. But then we approve of it in our highest office, that of bishop, and we do so in practice without even settling the theological questions involved. All based on a possbility? Nonsense. The national leadership is acting on what they believe is a certainity. God is doing a new thing, we were told in Minneapolis. Again, the message of the leaders and their actions do not compute.
150 people attending an otherwise obscure ‘conference’ in South Carolina is a rather impressive number, especially for a non-free event with a ticket price per person of $25.00. The [url=http://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/tools/view_newsletter.php?newsletter_id=1409623189]conference[/url] was advertised as a chance to meet the top leaders of TEC, with lay leader Bonnie Anderson giving both the keynote address and the sermon at Eucharist. The [url=http://www.episcopalforumofsc.org/]final agenda[/url] released last Thursday was to include a greeting from Bishop Salmon and the reading of a letter of greeting from Bishop-Elect Lawrence.
The Episcopal Forum of South Carolina was formed [url=http://www.episcopalforumofsc.org/mission.html]in opposition to[/url] the Anglican Communion Network and [url=http://www.episcopalforumofsc.org/pressreleases.html]has been affiliated with[/url] Via Media since 2004.
Dave Munday in his [i]Post and Courier[/i] article makes clear that the focus of the conference was in opposition to “alternate networks and affiliations,” but he does lead off by highlighting the sexuality issue as noted by Kendall+ above.
I would guess that the audience for this conference was predisposed to at least entertain the “possibility” that God is calling us to a “new understanding.” More to the point, Rev. Frank Wade (who joined the faculty of General Theological Seminary this year) has used the institutional loyalty of many long-term Episcopalians to further the radical agenda of the GLBT faction. In this manner he fulfills the strategy of Susan Russell: “An Inch at at Time.”
[blockquote] The governing council in Montgomery County, Md., is considering adopting an “open doors” policy to its public restrooms, locker rooms and other facilities to meet the demands of a transgender “non-discrimination” plan, which would allow men into women’s lockers and vice versa, a support group reports. /blockquote]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58469
So is this all part of that new thing? A new form of sexualtity which would have been perfectly at home in 1st Century Rome? You know that time when Christians were being told by Paul and the Apostles that such things were sin? I guess it took God 2000 years to catch up to the program.
Kendall, I read once (but can’t find on Google) that old economic theories don’t die off until old economists do. In a similar vein, we cannot expect that the relevant theological questions will ever be truly ‘settled,’ because:
• Questions like this cannot be resolved empirically to a reasonable certainty, in contrast to comparable questions in, say, medicine;
• In the Anglican / Protestant tradition we have no pope who can supposedly resolve the matter by ex cathedra pronouncement, with the price of dissent being excommunication;
• In modern Western civilization there’s no Emperor Constantine to forcibly suppress dissent (thank God).
As a result, it seems, the only thing that is ever ‘settled’ is the views of the bitter-enders on one side or another, who loudly proclaim those views even (or especially) as their numbers shrink over time.
Bottom line: When it comes to “the theological questions involved,” we’re never going to see our theologians joyfully shouting, “It’s settled — Bishop X has found the right answer!”
What I object to most in this formulation is the justification that it is God who is calling. To cite God as the author is an impertinence of a remarkble kind. This is the snake oil salesman saying he got the recipe for his universal potion from a powerful Indian shaman (now, alas, long dead and beyond questioning.) LM
Hey did ya’ll notice Bonnie’s “muscle” has raised the official number to as many as 60 – not sure if the 2 dozen in litigation are on top of that or not. Always nice when counsel gives the talking points at a church function. The shape of things to come. But when a Church becomes a REIT that is to be expected.
To even pose the question, “Is God calling us to a new understanding of human sexuality?” is to do theology. As people proclaiming to be Christians they even have a way to to go about.
If on the other hand you are basicaly a secular organization and decisions are made by votes and power politics then DC is absolutely right.
In such an organization there is never a “right” answer. The only answer is whatever an evershifting majority or power group can get accepted at any one point in time.
Has that phrase “a new understanding” been trade marked? I’m so sick of hearing it, because what it means is: We have re-written scripture to suit our own selfish needs.
I was there. So was Bishop Salmon. And a nice warm letter of greeting from our bishop-elect, Mark Lawrence. Kendall was not there, even though it was a meeting held in his home town and he is the designated “theologian” of the Diocese in which we met. It is interesting to read the guesswork of those who weren’t there; I submit that unless we talk face to face, there won’t be much good theology done, or even considered. I was there because I take seriously some solemn vows I made before God and a bishop 53 years ago. I have no interest in attributing motives to those whom I have not been willing to talk with face-to-face.
#8 the reason I was not there was because I was in Colorado. I had a previous obligation and passed on my inability to be present to Bonnie Anderson’s office. And it was not in the town where I live.
Re #8
So are you saying that the newspaper account is incorrect, and that Father Kendall’s response is based on incorrect information? If not, then what you seem to be saying is that, for example, no one who was not actually physically present for the last General Convention can take issue with anything it did or anything that was said. You’re also suggesting that intellectual discussion in a forum such as this, or in a magazine such as Theology Today or First Things, is also invalid, since it didn’t take place face to face. Is that really what you’re contending?
Kendall – as Canon Theologian of my Diocese, you have raised an interesting question for me. You say “we do so in practice without even settling the theological questions involved.†I have long heard “Theology is the Queen of the sciencesâ€. Is theology abstract or is it concrete? Did St. Paul have a chance to settle “the theological questions involved†before the cross and empty tomb? And who are these anonymous Church leaders who are doing all these bad things? Aren’t you designated in a leadership position in the Church?
Frank Wade raised a question at the meeting of the Episcopal Forum: “Is God calling us to a new understanding of human sexuality?†It seems to me that if such a question is important for the Marine Corps, the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, business and industrial leaders throughout this country, then it is also important to the Church. Or is our former policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell†in the election of leaders the best we can do theologically.
I don’t think my Bible has an abstract phrase in it. Seems to me it is extraordinarily concrete, dealing with genuine human questions in often most extraordinary ways. It also seems to me that if the only thing a theologian can say to me is “the sky is falling on the Episcopal Churchâ€, it is a pretty hopeless and useless theology for me.
RE: “And who are these anonymous Church leaders who are doing all these bad things?”
Oh, I think they can be determined by a quick check of the “yes” votes to the consecration of Bishop Robinson, among numerous other things determined at the last two General Conventions.
RE: “It seems to me that if such a question is important for the Marine Corps, the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, business and industrial leaders throughout this country, then it is also important to the Church. Or is our former policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell†in the election of leaders the best we can do theologically.”
No — the “former policy” of being clear that sexual activity outside of the bonds of marriage was “the best we can do theologically” seeing as how it was based on God’s word and 2000 years of church tradition . . . and that theology was overturned boldly and forthrightly at GC 2003 and in the subsequent actions of the past four years.
To hear Episcopal church leaders now — in 2007, mind you, [i]after[/i] taking those bold and forthright actions — proclaiming that “it’s a possibility” that “God is doing a new thing” is amusing in its attempts at denial of the FACT that the humans already [i]did the “new thing”[/i] four years ago and counting.
RE: “It also seems to me that if the only thing a theologian can say to me is “the sky is falling on the Episcopal Church†. . . ”
Haven’t noticed that Kendall Harmon is saying that . . . unless of course, one is simply interpreting the endless stream of heretical theologies streaming from bishops’ mouths and heretical actions enacted by various dioceses, which Kendall faithfully chronicles, nearly all without comment, on this very blog.
And if you’re *interpreting* those stories as evidence that “the sky if falling on the Episcopal church” then you’d join a whole lot of other Episcopalians in that interpretation.
As it is, you merely sound irked that Kendall has a highly trafficed blog that Episcopalians read to discover the actions, events, and statements of the leaders of our national church, rather than depending on ENS and diocesan publications. And if that’s the case, you’d be in the group of progressives that looks back wistfully on the good old days, back when they could hide the news rather than distribute it.
#11, good theology is both abstract and concrete, as the Bible well illustrates. Of course Frank Wade is right to raise the question, but TEC settled it preemptively, against the wishes of her worldwide sisters and brothers, and without resolving the theological question first either. Our process is widely regarded as a great example of how not to go about decision making.
You write:
But this is not a fair or accurate representation of what I am saying. Misrepresenting those with whom you disagree with is not helpful.
“The archbishop made it clear that he believed the Episcopal Church had acted preemptively in consecrating Bishop Robinson.”
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/press_conference_coming_up.html
Kendall – FYI, Summerville has annexed Middleton Place, or so the sign on the side of the road says. Don’t you live in Summerville?
I didn’t realize the annexation was completed, I stand corrected, thanks for the info.
[blockquote]You say “we do so in practice without even settling the theological questions involved.†I have long heard “Theology is the Queen of the sciencesâ€. Is theology abstract or is it concrete? Did St. Paul have a chance to settle “the theological questions involved†before the cross and empty tomb?[/blockquote]
#8, 11 – My first and honest reaction is “hunh???” I see little coherence or logical relationship between the four sentences above. The second sentence is irrelevant and in my opinion rather wrong. It does not matter whether theology is “abstract or concrete” in light of the fact in hand – that the Episcopal Church changed practice without dealing with theology. For the life of me I can’t figure out what the fourth sentence is trying to say. It seems to me Paul worked from theology (or perhaps more accurately theological reflection on what God had done throughout the story of creation, the story of Israel, and most of all through Jesus Christ) to practice. And would write letters to the churches because their practice was out of whack… and their practice was messed up because their theology was messed up. (Ding, ding, ding.)
I sense a lot of emotion here, but not a lot of dispassionate thought. With all due respect – a very disappointing response.
Patriarch,
I’m sorry I was unable to attend; I had a funeral to tend to. At the moment, that was more important.
BTW, don’t you have some unfinished business with Kendall here, given your implications in #8, and Kendall’s disclosure about his physical presence being out of state in Colorado?
RGEaton
17 took the words out of my mouth. I’m actually surprised that more people did not comment on it. There is a degree of incoherence in the passage he cited that I cannot get through. Does anyone know what he means? LM
Did Paul say in 1 Corinthians that “there is a possibility that God was calling us to a new understanding in the resurrection” ? No! He’s absolutely certain, and staked his life on it many times. (#11 “Paul” as such didn’t even exist before the crucifixion; I think you may have missed something in your question.)
The idea that “there is a possibility that God is leading us into a new understanding of sexuality” is a reason for a conservative to keep an open mind, but NOT a reason to vote yes for VGR. That requires that one be pretty sure.
This “new thing” I keep hearing about is as old or older than Sodom and Gommora ( I could add that sufficient pictorial evidence indicates that that Pompei was infected with the same evil). It was evil then and thousands of years of time will not alter it to good.