Paradox is the stock and trade of the kingdom of God. Perhaps when Jesus invites us to take up our crosses, he is inviting us to take up the burden of paradox: an instrument of death that is for us a symbol of life. Obedience to that call is called in the Scriptures “perfect freedom” ”“ yet another paradox.
For us to choose the way of paradox as Anglicans/Episcopalians, in the context of the Archbishop’s definition, would be to choose to see one another as being faithful even though that faithfulness does not look the same. It would be to acknowledge the faithfulness of the Archbishop of Nigeria and the faithfulness of the Bishop of New Hampshire ”“ and the faithfulness of those they represent. Though I disagree with him on almost everything, can I see Archbishop Akinola as standing under the authority of Scripture and seeking to be obedient to his understanding of it? Am I able to acknowledge the authenticity of his sacramental ministry and share the Eucharist with him? Am I able to see that, in the context of Nigeria, his preaching may indeed constitute Good News for the vast majority of his people? And is someone who feels about the Bishop of New Hampshire the way I feel about the Archbishop of Nigeria able to do the same?
There is no question that to walk this way of paradox is hard. My mind cries out, “They can’t both be right! There is only one Truth!” But my heart and spirit are not quite as sure as my mind. As St. Paul pointed out, we see as in a mirror, darkly, so long as we are in this present life. Each of us is possessed of cloudy vision, only able to glimpse the partial ”“ and only in those rarified moments of mystical exaltation to catch a brief glimpse of the whole.
What continues to amaze me — even after many years of exposure to it — is the comic-strip world of stereotypes in which the progressives appear to operate perceptually. And it is supremely ironic that this piece, which tries to promote “paradox” — apparently meaning recognition of the moral complexity and ambiguity of human existence — displays this cartoonish worldview to a much greater extent than any traditionalist writings I’ve seen.
the author writes:
[i] It seems to me that Jesus himself doesn’t make the choice of exclusion. [/i]
Indeed – but that was not because he changed the Truth of the Kingdom. It is because he allowed each to determine whether or not he would pick up his cross and follow Him.
THAT is radical inclusion.
Compare this with the Bishop of the Southern Cone:[blockquote] “Christianity is specific, definable and unchanging. We are not at liberty to deconstruct or rewrite it. If Jesus was the Son of God yesterday then so He is today and will be forever.” [/blockquote] Either truth exists or is does not. Choose this day.
“A” is not “non-A”. To stray from this truth is to venture into the irrational. This way lies madness. I cannot live a consistantly irrational life, nor do I care to associate with those who attempt to do so.
The flaw in this thinking is that Bishop Robinson does not recognize the authority of Scripture. Many liberals have begun to acknowledge that they really cannot “interpret” their way into the LGBT agenda, and so they assert that the Scripture is simply wrong on this issue. It’s more honest, in my opinion. They are following “the Spirit” rather than “the Law,” and in their view, Scripture is “the Law” which needs to be passed over. We are free to choose one way or the other, but not both.