But how does the Church change its mind? How does it square inspiration with democracy?
I think it happens over time. And the first person, or the first few people, who articulate a new understanding never meet with particularly positive reactions. It takes time for any kind of consensus to build.
You go back to Acts, and you have Gamaliel talking about the disciples’ teaching in the marketplace, saying: “You know, we ought to give this some time. If it’s not of God, it will go away. And if it is of God, do we want to be opposing it?” I think we’re in the middle of that now. All of us want it to be over, but the fact of the matter is that it’s going to take us some time to settle this.
But didn’t Rowan Williams say to you that the proper way of doing this was to pose the question, take soundings, and convince people before doing the deed?
What I said to Rowan in that meeting was “Yes, wouldn’t that be wonderful? It sounds so orderly, and neat and tidy, when in fact it rarely happens that way.” We find someone taking action and then we think our way backwards to it.
I pointed out to him that in our own country we had 11 women who were uncanonically ordained to the priesthood before we had sanctioned the ordination of women. I wonder how many years it would have taken us (rather than the two years it took us to the next General Convention to approve that) to ordain women had we gone about that in an orderly process. We might still not be ordaining women.
Please may the comments stock to the comments and arguments in the article. Thanks.
I guess it is ok for a parish to pull out of TEC. Then the consensus and the canons can catch up to what is happening. Consensus is when people agree with what you are already doing. Would the bishop agree? It is his logic.
“I pointed out to him that in our own country we had 11 women who were uncanonically ordained to the priesthood before we had sanctioned the ordination of women. I wonder how many years it would have taken us (rather than the two years it took us to the next General Convention to approve that) to ordain women had we gone about that in an orderly process. We might still not be ordaining women.”
The hijackers’ school of theology, one could say. Of course, has the canons been observed there may not have been approved ordination services for women. And there may have been a regrouping of orthodox believers, a halt to the schism of the continuing churches, a brake on the gay agenda, real ecumenical gains with Rome and the Orthodox, and retention of the millions of lost Episcopalians.
Bp. Robinson’s observation certainly persuades me.
And one might note, once again, how non-canonical prophetic action is fine with VGR when in a “progressive” direction. But not if it involves reactionary Anglo-Catholics in California or evangelicals with African links.
How in the world can this guy bring up Gamaliel? The TEO is failing miserably in Gamaliel’s test. In his own diocese people are fleeing at an unabating rate.
As Kendall points out we are making theological discussions without any discussion of theology. How are we doing this? By disregarding canons and traditions and ramrodding the issue and then hoping it will be decided as a fait accompli.
Robinson seems to have correctly learned that mainstream Christians “perceive that the fuller inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the Church is the precursor, the sort of camel’s nose under the tent, to the deconstruction of other essentials, whether that be the divinity of Christ, or the Trinity, or the resurrection.â€
I think it’s important he’s put this on the table. The problem is, his own institution shows this is no wild perception. The only quibble I have is that one isn’t a “precursor†to the other: they tend to go hand in hand, just as they have in the long, sordid recent history of Episcopalianism. And this is the way it has to be, really, since the moral case against the presenting issue, within a Christian framework (as opposed to a libertarian or sex-soaked Western culture framework), is the closest thing in Christianity we get to a stone-cold, lead pipe lock. Therefore, if one wants to discredit that case, one has to take a jackhammer to the foundational credibility of Scripture, Tradition, the Apostolic witness and the legitimacy of the Church as a teacher, in some corporate way, of the Gospel. Which is, of course, exactly what’s been done.
I am going to comment on another part of the article, namely;
[blockquote] But conservatives say it’s not about sexuality: it’s a scripture issue.
Well, I would believe that if the person saying it were keeping kosher, if they weren’t wearing two kinds of cloth on their bodies at the same time, or not planting two kinds of seed in the same field . . . because those kinds of proscriptions are in Leviticus, and yet somehow they don’t have eternal binding authority the way these two verses have been pulled out. [/blockquote]
I never fail to be amazed at the depths of ignorance about basic priniciples of Biblical interpretation. To have a Bishop of the church make such basic mistakes suggests a level of ignorance that is truly astonishing. Could it be that the basic problem with the TEC is that the training of clergy has been so at fault that they do not know how to read their Bibles? Or is it, more cynically, that they don’t want to?
As for this, many feel deeply unhappy that the TEC’s current teaching on divorce is so contrary to the teaching of Jesus.
Having listened to some sermons I’d venture that the issue of theology is seen as a ruse the neo-Pharisees drege up to block the new inspiration out there.
IMHO that view begs the words of Jesus himself who said he was here to fulfill both the law and prophets and the law go away until the end of time. God’s law has to fit in somewhere if we are to hear Jesus and not our own voices, but perhaps thinking that way just drops me into the neo-Pharisee ranks.
Shall we say hoisted on his own petard? Gamaliel. Really? The proof is in the pudding. Dying churches, canons used as cannons, shrinking plate and pledge income, the list is endless and all this while we thump our chests and say what a gallant charge (I know it’s actually too militant for TEC) and call ourselves the “faithful remnant”. Yep, this is truly of God!
[blockquote]Because one of the things I’ve learned — and I’ve learned this from the most conservative people in our House of Bishops — is that they perceive that the fuller inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the Church is the precursor, the sort of camel’s nose under the tent, to the deconstruction of other essentials, whether that be the divinity of Christ, or the Trinity, or the resurrection. That could not be further from [i]the truth about me[/i]. [Emphasis added.][/blockquote]
It’s not about him. The nature of truth is not about him. The interconnectedness of universals is not about him. It’s not about him, or what a nice man he is, or how ‘unexpectedly orthodox’ he might be.
Indeed, it’s about the very opposite: that truth is not always particular to the person, or to their perspective, or to their circumstances.
Indeed, in a large measure, [i]it’s about the fact that it’s not about him[/i].
And that is why we are locked in this prison together. To those who refuse to admit the possibility of absolute truth, and for whom all truth is personal, the insistence on the possibility of universals seems ultimately to require the rejection of a particular person- hate.
The Christian, however, knows that the simultaneous acceptance of the person and acceptance of universals of which that person might ultimately fall short is the very opposite- the Greatest Love.
I wiish I could determine what he means – and whether he means it – when he praises himself as utterly orthodox.On the surface, such a remark would seem beyond absurd. Can it be that he does not know that all his pro- homosexual argument marks him as wholly unorthodox?
Can he not know? Or is this hypocrisy? A politician playing word games for the gathering of votes? I have developed an abiding distrust – with good reason I believe – in TEC’s use of language. And yet, I am also certain that we are dealing with people who are capable of deceiving themselves in fundamental ways. That the latter has created the former, in fact.It may be that at the core of VGR and Schori and the like, there is a level of self-deception that we have not seen elsewhere, and that this has generated a virtual world that is complete in itself because there are so many who share the same self-deception. The logic is thus: We are what we say because we have said it. Larry
BTW, “sexuality’s an issue that’s been talked about much too little?”
Does he live in the same country I do?
Yes, well now that Gene brought it up, those eleven should have been unlicensed along with whatever action could have been taken against the offending bishops. The same should (could) have happened with Gene and his situation. He shouldn’t be deacon, priest or bishop until repenting of behavior against the Good News of Jesus which is his sexual behavior. Gene is giving us one more apology for rebellion, the usual way the church ends up in a mess. Authority by individual action. There: deal with it! See the resulting mess?
I’ve seen this fallacy argued by many educated reappraisers who should know better, most recently by “Fr Jake†just a few days ago .
Are they really that Biblically ignorant that they are honestly saying “Well, Leviticus says which Christians ignore, so therefore its also OK to ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality�
I don’t think so. They’re way more clever than that.
I think that they know statements like these will be heard by two types of people (yeah, its really more of a spectrum, but for simplicity I’ll break it up into a binary group (and for you computer geeks out there, we all know there are 10 types of people – those who understand binary numbers and those that don’t)) :
(1) Those who are Biblically literate and can immediately see right through arguments like this. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of those who have studied Scripture in depth and are very Biblically literate are reasserters. So, from the reappraiser point of view, they might think “who cares what this group of people think? Who cares if they catch me being dishonest – they’re a lost cause anyway, and I’m not interested in reaching out to themâ€.
(2) Those who aren’t very Biblically literate – those who the only time they open a Bible is during the sermon when the preacher asks them to get out their pew Bibles. This is who statements like these are intended for – those who don’t know any better and will think “yeah, those others who are leaving our church are hypocrites – what a double standard they have!â€. These are the folks who don’t know much at all about what’s going on in TEC (except maybe what ENS tells them), and exactly the type the reappraisers in power need to retain.
So these reappraisers who should know better, do! They are purposefully being deceitful in order to lure those who aren’t paying attention that much closer to the “dark side†(which, as Yoda put best, is “Quicker, easier, and more seductiveâ€)
The church is not a democracy it is an absolute monarchy under Christ the King.
How in the world can this guy bring up Gamaliel? The TEO is failing miserably in Gamaliel’s test. In his own diocese people are fleeing at an unabating rate.
My dear, dear robroy, how can you not see the obvious? It all depends upon how you define success. Look at the spactacular success they are experiencing. Homosexuality is being affirmed. Homophobes are being driven out of the church. The Bible is becoming ever more irrelevant in Episcopal churches. Every day the percentage of backward thinking orthodox in TEO are getting smaller and smaller. Hallelujah!
Or maybe that should be hallelu-Baal.
[blockquote]So these reappraisers who should know better, do! They are purposefully being deceitful in order to lure those who aren’t paying attention that much closer to the “dark side†(which, as Yoda put best, is “Quicker, easier, and more seductiveâ€) [/blockquote]
Who said (my paraphrase), “When there is no doctrinal purity, immorality will closely follow”? Similarly, we find Senator Clinton believing that she had to dodge sniper fire in her mid-90s visit to Bosnia–tell the lie often enough, and the people will believe it.
This interview is just too unbelievable to begin to comment on all the hooey in it! Geesh….talk about a lost sheep!
I think what he means by “orthodox” is something similar to what the Righter trial called “core doctrine”. I think this is wholly inadequate and, though he doesn’t and can’t say so (because it would blow his claims to be orthodox out of the water), Bishop Robinson acts as if it is inadequate too. Thus, for him the inclusion of non celibate same sex couples is not a matter of theological opinion. It is an ethical matter demanded by the Gospel. Not looking so orthodox any more?
The Bishop’s rhetoric of plus orthodoxe que les orthodoxe is an interesting and risible development. It’s the latest media strategy from the media Bishop designed, not to reach out to the conservatives, but to make his opponents at Lambeth look like bigots. “Look at me, I tell you I’m as orthodox as they are. Can you not see that they are just bigots.”
[blockquote]I pointed out to him that in our own country we had 11 women who were uncanonically ordained to the priesthood before we had sanctioned the ordination of women. [/blockquote] He says that as if it’s a good thing. I fully support women in the priesthood; but the advocates in the 70’s went about it all wrong. The ends do not justify the means.
“We might still not be ordaining women.”
And the Church would be the better for it. This statement points out the puzzle of “ordained women” who object to the ordaination of homosexuals. They fight the creature so much like themselves.
Interesting article. Robinson makes me sick but still you’re not going to like this: http://theenlightenmentproject.blogspot.com/2008/05/church-times-never-lonelier-never-more.html
How illuminating for all: Gene rightly points to women’s ordination and a softening in attitude to divorce as precursors of the current situation.
But far from making me think active homosexuality is compatible with ordained life it only serves to remind me of the past sins of the church. Perhaps others should think deeply on this too.
So many people who were happy to ignore scripture and trad. over women priests now lament the situation we are in. It was only ever the natural progression…when you bend scripture once you lose any abilitiy to stop others doing likewise.
An open thread on Gene Robinson and only twenty-two comments?
Now, I’m starting to get concerned.
[i]CStan, your comment is not appreciated. What we DO appreciate is that the commenters on this thread have been quite careful in following Kendall’s exhortation to focus on the content of the interview. Well done all, please keep it up and disregard CStan’s invitation to pour on the snark and sarcasm. — elfgirl[/i]
How in the world do you construe my comment as “an invitation to pour on snark and sarcasm”?
Having been a long-time reader who counts on this blog for information and insight it does concern me that a Gene Robinson thread only elicits twenty or so responses.
I have memories of these kinds of threads going close to if not over one hundred responses and I certainly don’t recall eighty or so of them being mostly snark and sarcasm.
Is the ‘other side’ wearing us down?
[i]Thanks for the clarification CStan. Apologies for misunderstanding your comment. In general our comment numbers are way down on most threads. 22 comments is actually on the higher side. There are probably quite a lot of reasons for the decline. I think it is not a case of the “other side” wearing us down, but folks just not having much new to say. After a while commenting further can seem a bit pointless.[/i]
Thanks.
Canons are the rule of law. Period. Consensus should happen and then activism bring about changes to those canons. Or else we have nothing but every man doing according to what is right in his own eyes. Such anarchy never ends; whether it’s VGR’s ordination, open communion of the unbaptized at Grace Cathedral and the National Cathedral or Beers et al reading their own unique versions
into the canons. The canons should be changed by process and activism rather than disobedience and manipulation. Credibility depends on it, as does integrity.
This paragraph says decades full of truth:
[blockquote]Meanwhile, as these priests spend their time in bull sessions discussing all the world’s problems, church buildings are being sold off, becoming derelict and being demolished, and in the US, the last bastion of religiousity in the First World, secularism is proceeding apace: the fastest growing “religious group” in the US is the unchurched. No one’s minding the store. And the problem, as the old poster had it, is obvious: the priests who run the Church don’t believe in God, or think that religion is either important or interesting. Or maybe more aptly, they think they’re too important to do religion.[/blockquote]
The worlds problems should ba concern of all of us, however that is why we elect Assemblymen, Congressmen, Senators, Local Government Officials, Presidents & Vice Presidents, House of Representatives, etc…. If the Church and her priest and bishops were spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ, teaching His Word, we might have better Christians and Churched individuals who actually see their responsibilities differently than they do now. Now all they see, hear, and feel is “Me, me, me, me, me, me….”! Whoa-is-me!
Gene Robinson “orthodox” (10 Larry Morse)? Of course he is “orthodox.” He is as certainly orthodox as are the other controlling bishops, priests, deacons and laity in the new episcopal corporation. The majority of the stockholders has simply redefined the term in order for it to be ego-syntonic for them to cast out those who dissent from their newly established orthodoxy. Is this surprising?Protestants have been doing that from the beginning.
28 I hope you do not misunderstand me. I find VGR’s comment that he is so very orthodox a dreadful (but common) piece of hypocrisy.
Maybe. But as I said, I suspect that he may be deceiving himself in a most thoroughgoing way. He may truly believe he is the paradigm of orthodoxy because he thinks he is: Virtual reality is the real reality if I may put it that way. Is he two faced? Yes indeed. One is the political face, manipulative, controlling, dissembling, falsely humble – we have seen this often enough. But the other is the face he see in the mirror, and t his face, I suspect, is wholly generated from his wishes and desires; it is a virtual face, and HE DOESN’T KNOW IT.
We may see the same incongruity in Schori. Larry
29, not at all, Larry. I fully agree with your position. I am suggesting that revisionism has become the new orthodoxy to be espoused by Mrs. Schori and her more immediate predecessors, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Spong, et al. The truly repugnant thing is that none of them sees any problem with their heresy. It’s similar to Mrs. Clinton believing that she dodged sniper fire in her mid-50s trip to Bosnia–until the news film demonstrated otherwise. Pathology runs deeply and ruins effectively when there is no Truth.
kb9gzg, austin, and Larry Morse,
I once heard +VGR’s predecessor, +Doug Theuner, describe himself as “biblically orthodox.” Shocked the heck out of me at the time. Theuner not only groomed +VGR as if he would inevitably become the bishop of SOMETHING some day, but he orchestrated the NH electing Convention so that the confirmations would be carried out in the media limelight of General Convention– and guided by emotions and PR more than theology.
“We find someone taking action and then we think our way backwards to it.” VGR+’s rationale for what austin (#3) calls the “hijacker’s school of theology.” The theological and biblical deliberations by the whole Church have been pre-empted. Let us suppose, for the sake of dialogue, that there was a theological justification for these or other controversial actions. Now all we’ll get to hear is the distorted version– after-the-fact, suspect, agenda-driven theologizing.
From all of +VGR’s public statements that I’ve read or heard, I honestly can’t say I’ve seen enough in his own words on the subjects of salvation, christology, the resurrection, etc., to say whether or not he is “orthodox” on those points. Perhaps he really is orthodox on all points of Christian belief except the one (or two, if you want to add women’s ordination) getting most of the attention right now. But his dismissive cheap shot about keeping kosher diminishes what I take to be a valid point– that the Anglican approach to Scripture isn’t precisely the same as what some other traditions mean by inerrancy.
His having been mentored by +Theuner might be a clue to why he keeps bringing up his “surprising” (to liberals and conservatives alike!) orthodoxy, and what he means by orthodoxy. +Theuner’s playbook is probably +VGR’s playbook. The same playbook evidently says you should call God’s presence “palpable” when anyone questions whether you are moving in the direction of the Lord’s will.
I am struck by what seems to be an overall gracious tone in +VGR’s responses, and I don’t know of any reason to doubt he is being genuine.
Pax, Chuck+