The ground-breaking work of Rene Girard has revealed the mechanism of scapegoating. Girard teaches that Jesus and the Hebrew prophets began loosening the chains of scapegoating. This action of isolating Bishop Robinson is retrogressive, taking us backwards to a shadowy, scary place from which we have already been delivered by Christ and the Prophets.
The isolation and exile of Bishop Robinson has implications for the Communion too, within the larger framework of scapegoating. A former Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, once said that if you touch one bishop of the Anglican Communion, you touch them all. This refers to the idea that bishops represent the unity of the Church. The bishop as a symbol of unity is usually understood at the level of a diocese, but there is a larger horizon of meaning – when we look at one bishop our spiritual vision can see all bishops everywhere, for the unity represented is most importantly the unity of the Church throughout the earth.
The isolation and exile of Bishop Robinson rebukes the bright vision of the unity of the Church, and subsitutes the mechanism of the diabolic, the shattering of communion and integrity. I cannot overemphasize how important it is to meet this action on our Archbishop’s part with the weapons of the spirit. I will be praying that my response and our response will be in solidarity with Bishop Robinson, mindful of our relatedness worldwide, full of shalom, and creative, in the manner of Jesus Christ.
I appreciate the sense of brotherly love that Bishop Andrus is showing. I think he fails to understand the reality of the situation. If we look at the BCP 79 and our Canons, based in scripture, the official teaching of the church is that the only acceptable place for sexual relations is within the bonds of holy matrimony. I fail to see how a Bishop who is openly engaged in a relationship outside of marriage, and one who openly talks about that, can be seen as not being devise (breaking unity) in the communion. Since a Bishop is a symbol and is for the whole church and is a symbol of unity- How could Bishop Robinson be invited? He doesn’t even fall within the bounds of ECUSA own teaching. Perhaps Bishop Robinson, if he sees being at lambeth so important, would take a vow of celibacy, keep it, and then ask for an invitation. It would at least place his behavior within the bounds of our teaching.
As I recall the AC begged TEC not to do this, and that if done would tear the fabric of communion. They did it anyway. So why is it that Bishops like Andrus always ignore this fact when they are subjected to the consequences of theer own actions? The reason is that it’s all one way with them. We are to listen to them, never they to us. No action of their’s ever causes loss of unity, while every reaction to their initiatives by the orthodox threatens unity.
A question: If they knew then what they know now and the termoil their actions in pushing the GLBT would have on the AC would they still have proceeded? I think, yes.
Bishop Andres should get over complaining about the counter actions that only arose because of his and others like him, own actions.
Re: “A former Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, once said that if you touch one bishop of the Anglican Communion, you touch them all. This refers to the idea that bishops represent the unity of the Church.”
Precisely, Marc Andrus!!
That was exactly why the Primates (including then PB Griswold) were of one voice in agreement that if the consecration of Gene Robinson proceeded, it would tear the fabric of the Anglican Communion (and its unity) at its deepest level.
What those of us with still some sanity, honesty, and integrity are failing to see why the Episcopal “church” is pretending not to see the error of her way and the duplicity of her positions.
EcUSA/TEc continues to act like the adult child who murdered her parents and when found guilty of patri-and matricide insists she be let free of punishment on the basis of her being an orphan – calling the judge and the juries bullies and heartless to an orphan.
Marc Andrus et al, STOP insulting our intelligence!!
Besides falling over himself among the metaphors of scapegoating and darkness and sentimental language of unity and representation, he illustrates the problem with his agenda in the statement here, “I will be praying that my response and our response will be in solidarity with Bishop Robinson, mindful of our relatedness worldwide, full of shalom, and creative, in the manner of Jesus Christ.”
We should pray to have the mind of Christ not the mind of Gene Robinson or any other human. And what would the manner of Jesus look like? I don’t think he really stand in solidarity with a person whose behavior stands in conflict with the Bible. He may repeat himself and respond …stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.
It is claimed here that Jesus and the Hebrew prophets began loosening the chains of scapegoating. Would +Andrus care to explicitly set forth the loosening? What loosening was contained when Jesus said that not a jot nor a tittle would be removed from the Law before all was accomplished? Retrogressive? How retrogressive is it to say, “from the beginning it was not soâ€. And that is what Jesus said. What loosening was proclaimed by Malachi? What did I miss?
Taking us backwards to a shadowy, scary place? Is this truly where Jesus takes us in John 14 – John 17? Gee. I never knew.
The isolation and exile of Bishop Robinson? How, precisely, has +Robinson been isolated? Has he been deposed? Has he been defrocked? How has he been exiled? Has he been forbidden to cross diocesan boundaries? I must have missed that. According to +Robinson’s latest post, he was crossing boundaries and unavailable for further comments.
Rebukes the bright vision of the unity of the Church? What bright vision would that be? Certainly not the bright vision of the NT. Certainly not the bright vision of the Ancient Creeds. Certainly not the bright vision of the Fathers. All of those bright visions have been denounced as oppressive, sexist, misogynist, and favoring royalty over democracy. You can read it all in the chronicles of GC 2003 and GC 2006.
Substitutes the mechanism of the diabolic? Oh, really.
This is a cute way of saying tha insisting on the NT as normative is of the devil, as is Jesus, when He teaches that marriage of one man, one woman for life is normative. Is Jesus diabolic? It would be interesting to know.
Or, on the other hand, is the NT NOT authoritative, and do we have other (secret) (personal) ways of knowing who Jesus really is?
The shattering of communion and integrity? Well, I know from published testimony that Integrity feels pretty upset. I know that communion is upset, at least as far as ++Akinola is concerned. Is this what +Andrus means?
In solidarity with Bishop Robinson? This is the new anti-Communism? +Andrus is a union leader in a Polish shipyard, now? The Anglican Communion is the new Communist world-dominating heuristic?
Full of shalom?
Now shalom means peace. Peace means being reconciled to God. To be reconciled to God needs a Savior, since we are sinners. Or does +Andrus reject our inherited sin nature also?
Creative, in the manner of Jesus Christ? Is this the Christ who told His disciples that they would demonstrate their love for Him by DOING everything that He had commanded them to do? Or is there a new Christ, according to a new revelation?
This post begs so many questions that one scarcely knows where to begin.
It seems rather a stretch to bring Girard into the picture. Is then Martyn Minns a scapegoat too?
I agree that Robinson is a scapegoat to the extent that those who promoted and consecrated him as bishop share in the blame and by rights should be excluded as well.
Andrus does turn on it head the mantra from reappraisers we heard in the lead up and immediate aftermath of Robinson’s consecration though: that the selection of a bishop was of a local concern and didn’t affect the Anglican Communion as a whole or its unity.
When the Gospel is turned into inclusion at any cost, then exclusion becomes the ultimate heresy. This reductionist view of the faith produces the kind of tirade that Bp. Andrus has treated us to.
Andrus says:
My cynical side wants to follow up with the language of child-abuse investigations: ‘But is that a “good touch”–or a “bad touch”?’
“Robert Runcie, once said that if you touch one bishop of the Anglican Communion, you touch them all. ”
Which is why Robinson cannot be recognized as a bishop.
Here is another take on the same quote:
“The election, consents, and consecration of Bishop Robinson rebukes the bright vision of the unity of the Church, and subsitutes the mechanism of the diabolic, the shattering of communion and integrity. I cannot overemphasize how important it is to meet this action with the weapons of the spirit. I will be praying that my response and our response will be in solidarity with the Church in all times and at all places, mindful of our relatedness worldwide, full of shalom, and creative, in the manner of Jesus Christ.”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I am of the personal opinion that Robinson should not be individually excluded from Lambeth as he was formally consecrated by TEC. Williams should either exclude all of TEC bishops who supported the consecration or include Robinson in the invitation.
#12 entirely correct.
Runcie’s idea of course is a load of rubbish. There is only one sort of unity – gospel unity, unity around the truth of the God’s revelation. All other unities are false, including the false unity of the episcopate. Bishops are only unifiying so long as they keep themselves in sync with gospel truth. As soon as they individually or corporately deny the truth, they are disunifying. Rowan is making a grave mistake inviting any of the consecrators of VGR. They are all the focus of disunity. They have all denied the gospel.
As all these comments about Robinson not being invited is that it not just about being a bishop for one province of the Episcopal Church. It is about being a bishop for the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. This depends on the life one leads. Clearly, according to scripture, Bishop Robinson fails to lead a life that is consistent with what is called for in one in Holy Orders.
Thus, he is not invited. Sometimes you have to live with the consequences of your actions even when you believe you are right.
Welcome to the real world Bishop Robinson.
C.S. Lewis believed that any virute taken to its ultimate exreme would become a demon. We are seeing a lot of this.
Akinola: If Minns doesn’t go, none of us goes.
Andrus (24 hours later): “scapegoating”, “noxious”, “retrogressive”, “diabolic” and…and…and, this will really show you, “I will be praying that my response and our response will be in solidarity with Bishop Robinson, mindful of our relatedness worldwide, full of shalom, and creative, in the manner of Jesus Christ.” So there.
Speaking strictly as a layman, but with a lifetime’s learning what the Bible teaches, at my mother and grandmother’s knee, and in some rather rigorous confirmation classes, and my own nearly fifty years since then, and in my reading of Anglican teachings and history, I have to say that I cannot recognize VGR’s orders, nor those of Dr. Schori. Just color me a throwback to a more traditional, scripturally informed time. I think +Andrus had to stretch quite a bit if he really believes what he wrote. His essay displays the intellectual flaccidity if not dishonesty that characterizes so much of the reappraising side. They need our prayers as much as any humans on this earthy. May God have mercy on us all.
Actually, no matter how you look at it VGR is not a scapegoat. A scapegoat is an innocent which carries away the sin of the guilty. He could be a fallguy: one of many guilty parties who takes the fall for everybody. Either way, we in Alabama are giving thanks to God that we no longer have to claim the source these tortured metaphors.
Where did Andrus get his theological education that leads him to believe that “we have already been delivered by Christ and the Prophets.” If the Prophets could deliver us, then Christ has died in vain. And, exactly which Prophet(s) does Andrus have in mind?
Do you think it likely that many or most of the HOB who elected VGR and consecrated him will deprive themselves of the Lambeth experience to show solidarity with VGR and/or the GLBTQ agenda?
I predict not. There’s solidarity and principle, and then there is Lambeth. It only comes around once every 10 years. Miss a chance like that? No way. Not even for the MDGs, much less VGR.
The folk who consented to VGR’s election and the bishops who chose to support and consecrate him believed that their actions were “prophetic”. They have no choice but to stand with VGR and turn down the invitation to attend the Lambeth Conference.
A fascinating exercise is to compare the responses to the Bishop of California on his own blog with the response here.
It appears that + Andrus has stumbled upon the threshing house: the one where the chaff is separated from the grains. Except, it seems that he wants to be among the chaff.
H
But another way of looking at this is this. He thinks the consecration of Gene Robinson was right. He’s sticking with him. He’s not selling him out, nor TEC as a whole. You may (many obviously do) disagree with him, but on its own terms it’s principled.
22. The answer is that the Vox site is censured!! I posted the same comment T did above in 19, and all they showed were the first 4 words!! This helps explain the difference.
What kind of statements does Bp. Andrus make when he gets excited?
Moheb (#19) asks about being “delivered by Christ and the prophets”
The short answer to your question is that churchmen like this use biblical sounding language mostly as a garnish – like bright green parsley or ornamental kale on a dinner plate.
It isn’t really meant to be eaten, but it can be.
What this phrase means, if digested, actually makes sense from a reappraiser point of view:
Christ is, like the prophets, primarily a speaker, not an actor, and certainly not the author of all things, or the actual “Savior” from sin .
The speech he utters is about things that are true (subject,of course, to the limitations of his limited and primitive world view which knows nothing about “orientation” and “loving, committed, monogamous relationships, yadda, yadda….)
Such speech, whether from him, or the prophets, or the Buddha
or Mohammed, or Bahu “allah, or any of the many guides which have arisen, “delivers” each of us from the error of rejecting any bit of the lovable, wonderful, divine thing that is my innermost godself.
It, however, does not deliver us from from hating anybody who crosses us, or tells us we have behaved badly.
Yes, I know, doesn’t really taste very good after all.
#10. Chris,
The grades for today’s class in logic are out:
Runcie A+
Hathaway A+
Andrus F
Following my comment (25), I did try again and Vox did include all of the comment.
I am somewhat familiar with Girard’s theology, and this is a very superficial (not to use other words) application of it indeed. In view of the representative role bishop Robinson has assumed, I do not think he can be depicted as a scapegoat in the sense in which Girard employs it.
Bishop Andrus’ words can simply not be squared with bishop Robinson’s. Either you have a Girardian scapegoat through whom we discharge the tensions of mimetic violence, or you accept that the man has consciously assumed a role as representative of the GLBT community within TEC and the wider Communion, and therefore is the appropriate channel through which signals are sent to that community. To try to have it both ways is an exercise in empty pseudo-theological posturing which smacks of “the mechanism of the diabolic” more than anything ++Williams has done.
God knows we’ve already seen enough pseudo-theology in this debate. Don’t add to it please. No more. For the sake of the gospel.