The Windsor Report invited the Episcopal Church in the US to explain “from within the sources of authority that we as Anglicans have received in scripture, the apostolic tradition and reasoned reflection, how a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ” (§135). Among many other things, the Episcopal Church’s careful response lists a number of issues-stewardship of creation, usury, slavery, just war, abortion, capital punishment, contraception, marriage and divorce, evolution, labor laws, and property rights among them-with respect to which “the Church’s appropriation of Scripture has been complex and in many cases … at odds with the most obvious sense of the biblical text.”
Like “the threat of schism over the role of women in [ordained leadership of] the Church,” the current controversy represents a moment of “severe theological and institutional crisis” for the Episcopal Church, and indeed for the wider Anglican Communion. Following the Episcopal Church’s reconciliation of northern and southern church structures after the Civil War, the House of Bishops refrained from addressing the question of race relations in pastoral letters for the rest of the nineteenth century, resulting in a mass exodus of African Americans and prompting one historian to describe the General Convention of 1865 as “abhorring ecclesiastical schism more than the suffering of people held in bondage.”74 Today the Episcopal Church seems prophetically clear about which violence is greater, and the more greatly to be abhorred.
The “lesser” violence of schism, however, is not to be suffered lightly, for preserving ecclesial communion as the proper context for hermeneutical work is integral to an Anglican understanding of reception of the living Word through the written word, traditioned experience, and reasoned reflection. “In the process of discernment and reception,” urges the 1997 Virginia Report, “relationships need to be maintained, for only in fellowship is there opportunity for correcting one-sidedness or ignorance.”75 For good and ill, the Anglican Communion enjoys no structure equivalent to the Pontifical Biblical Commission in the Roman tradition. For good, possibly, a broad church with soft edges has flourished seasonally and regionally, creating a healthy dialectical environment for theological discourse. For ill, certainly, implicitness has for too long governed its hermeneutical theories and argumentative practice. Under such conditions it is too easy for ecclesial identity-formation to become culturally fraternal, and thus biblically fratricidal and idolatrous.
As the Anglican Church narrows and hardens-to the point of being brittle-around positions on what the Bible says (or doesn’t say) in relation to this issue, greater accountabihty is needed to what its own tradition teaches the Bible is, and, in the unprotected space of public discourse, to those wider canons of sense-making by which our structurally murderous desire is held in reasonable check. Clearly the resources exist within the formularies and plausibility structures of Anglicanism to make such things explicit. By attending to these more intentionally, perhaps we can learn to be more fully ourselves: to “come out” as Anghcans-gay, lesbian, and straight-precisely by “staying in” communion.
Any opposition to homosexuality as the apex of human relations is violence. Any opposition to the imposition of this belief on everyone else is violence. I’ve been communicated at………again.
Scripture is clear on the issue of homosexuality and communion. If I obey, I am homophobic and schismatic per this article. To paraphrase the old Wendy’s commercial, “Where’s the dialogue” so beloved of liberals?
There is none. You must embrace their position. And if not then don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Kendall asks us to read it all, but just skimming the excerpt is enough to know not to waste my time. It’s simply a more detailed version of Satan’s statement in Genesis: “Did God really say that?”
Yes, God really said that, repeatedly. And that’s enough for me.
My thoughts as well Jim–why take the time to read it? Why’d Treloar take the time to write it?
[blockquote] This article seeks to analyze the violence of homophobia and the overlapping violence of schism … [/blockquote]
The use of the word “homophobia” in the first sentence of the text tells me that there is no basis for discussion. I’m being told that, if I oppose full acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, I am frightened by gays and likely to behave violently toward them. Period, end of story, end of discussion.
When someone supports the work of Marcus Borg with an appeal to Richard Hooker you know where this person is coming from (and likely that the person has had little exposure to Richard Hooker).
It works like this: long, complex paper is written. It is transmitted or quoted to seminarians or to clergy at a conference. The clergy then tell their congregations, “The best scholars say that the Bible isn’t really about what all those Bible-quoters say.” And the lay people tell their friends, “Our church doesn’t believe all that Bible stuff – intelligent people know it’s outdated and innacurate.”
Ubuntu, baby. Have an MDG on me.
“the violence of homophobia and the overlapping violence of schism”
Whatever happened to the English language? Fear of homosexuals amounts to violence? Schism is violence? This isn’t communication. It’s emotional intimidation, which makes it propaganda.
“The recurrent theme of sibling rivalry in the Hebrew Bible has the similar effect of setting brothers against one another while preserving the authority of the f/Father.” Ah yes, of course, why didn’t I see before, the Bible is simply in error having been written by and about those evil scheming paternalistic patriarchs of scripture.
Here is just one of many, many fallacies:
[blockquote]It trivializes same-sex sexuality as something that can be controlled, like coughing.[/blockquote]
This is 180 degrees off. Cough is an subconscious, life saving reflex. Without it we would all be dead for we all occasionally aspirate – usually when drinking and listening to a very funny joke at the same time. In contrast, with whom I jump in bed is very much a concious decision and can be controlled. Flip Wilson’s (or more precisely Geraldine’s) “The devil made me do it” doesn’t cut it.
But of course, we are called to not only control our outward manifestations but also inward thoughts.
[blockquote]But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment…But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.[/blockquote]
Can someone control their anger? Can someone suppress lustful thoughts? Of course. Is it harder for some because they are more prone to anger or to lust? Of course. But I personally attest to having much improved in these areas with prayer and help from loved ones. Jesus raises the bar, certainly, but certainly he wants us to strive to that goal. I can’t imagine a priest telling someone, “you are genetically disposed to anger, so just let it rip.” I am predisposed to homosexual thoughts, so I should just let them take me where they may? Sorry but no.
I agree with #5.
Robroy wrote: [blockquote] I am predisposed to homosexual thoughts, so I should just let them take me where they may? Sorry but no.[/blockquote]
Dang. There goes my bid for adultery. Turns out I’m not predisposed to fidelity. In fact, I find it quite natural to desire many partners. Then here comes killjoy robroy (an obvious adulterophobe) violently telling me that my natural disposition isn’t what I had hoped it was: a sign that sin is just fine. Double dang.
Well, I did read the whole thing. But I do have to agree with all the critics of this article above. There is no real attempt at serious dialogue here. It’s mere propaganda. It makes lots of assertions, but it’s almost totally lacking in arguments and evidence to back up those assertions. And although there are over 70 citations from various historical and contemporary sources, virtually all the quotations from contemporary writers are from theological liberals. And the few times a modern orthodox leader is quoted (e.g., ++Akinola and ++Jensen), it’s done in a dismissive way.
Is this the best pro-gay advocates can do? It’s about as pathetic and totally inadequate as the feeble TEC attempt at theological justification of its adoption of an implicit “gay is OK” policy that was presented to the ACC meeting in Nottingham, England three years ago, “To Set Out Hope on Christ.” Three whole years later, and in an academic journal of supposedly serious theology like ATR, the Anglican Theological Review, there is still no real improvement. The liberals still have completely and utterly failed to make even a plausible case, much less a convincing one.
Bottom line: In this learned but shallow article, nothing true is new. And nothing new is true.
David Handy+
It’s a hoot reading the [url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200801/ai_n25417680/print]editorial[/url].
Here is the journals stated perspective:
[blockquote]For almost ninety years, the Anglican Theological Review has been the unofficial organ of the seminaries of the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada[/blockquote]
Unsurprisingly given this perspective, the editor affirms as uncontentious that matter of sexuality are adiaphora (“matters upon which reasonable and faithful christians may reasonably disagree”). The articles her editorial introduces are:
1. An article on the theology of anti racism [I wonder what implications the author will draw]
2. An article that encourages one to set aside one’s dearly held position for the sake of something larger [he, he – it’d be great to see a scintilla of evidence for that within TEC]
3. The article Kendall references above – an apology for TEC
4. An article on Lambeth 1998’s affirmation of Un declaration of Human Rights [I wonder which rights he is specially thinking of – doh]
and 3 articles from a conference at CDSP in 2007 focusing on “Revisioning Anglicanism” two from figures she describes (however plausibly) as coming from the Global South. These are
5. A theologian from Brazil – Carlos Eduardo Calvani
6. A theologian from new Zealand – Jenny Plane Te Paa
7. A TEC theolgian who has worked in the Sudan – John Krater
IMO the only article worth reading is
8. Jason Byassee’s [url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200801/ai_n25417690/print]essay[/url]
about the Trinitarian theology of Sarah Coakley. Interestingly Jason Byassee is the only one of them, who I suspect has not attended a TEC seminary.
This whole issue of the journal is in effect a completely partisan apology for TEC.
I read the whole thing. My reaction: huh?
Let me just correct myself – the author of article 7. is John L. Kater a theologian who has taught at CDSP.
driver8 (#13 & 15),
As I’m coming to expect now, I wholeheartedly agree with you. And this complete takeover by leftists of one of the main journals for Anglicanism in North America is symptomatic. And perhaps it’s especially revealing since ATR comes out of Sewanee, and the (relatively) “new” Dean of Sewanee is someone who is personally orthodox, i.e., Bill Stafford+, who taught for so many years at VTS in Alexandria. Now Dean Stafford stikes me (fairly or not) as an institutionalist, so I wouldn’t expect him to impose a crackdown on this sort of nonsense in how ATR is edited and handled. In any case, he hasn’t done so.
This reminds me of Catholic politicians who keep trotting out the tired old excuse that they are “personally” opposed to abortion, but feel it’s wrong to impose this view on the nation by criminalizing the slaughter of our innocent unborn. That excuse just won’t fly.
Thanks for providing the context for this article. It appears that expecting to find a fair, objective article by someone who is orthodox in ATR these days is like expecting to find such an article in Episcopal Life. I say to you again: Well done, driver8.
David Handy+
It’s true enough that the essay here is simply propaganda of a commonplace sort, and there is little reason to waste time n it. The trouble is that the rest of America thinks his views on homosexuality are the sound ones, that he is in possession of the truth. THIS will determine at last what the Anglican church ends up agreeing to if it does not organize and prepare openly for battle. It will so end up because the congregations will be the driving force.
One of the men on my college list serve sent the list serve a gaggle of pictures taken at a homosexual/lesbian outing, if I may use that word. The men and women were all stark naked, their bodies were painted in multiple colors, and they were riding bikes. The streets were lined with people who were taking pictures. Even the little kids had cameras. I might add this was in San Francisco. I objected to the list serve, saying this parade was as corrupt s it was corrupting. I got a number of replies of the same sort, that I was being uptight, that the naked people on bikes were being silly but harmless and that my objections were pointless. One said that I had missed the fact that AI was seeing art (in the body painting). No one objected to the parade itself and no one was willing to see a moral issue in it. There were merely people having a good time. What was to object to?
See David Brooks essay yesterday on the our financial hedonism and think of the above in the current financial context: We are being given a chance, this very generation, to decide whether we wish America to be marked by self-restraint and self-discipline or by narcissism and self-indulgence. The price of gas is forcing us at last to think about this issue. What will we do? From our perspective, the question is: Will the Anglican Church lead or follow? Can it act or is it impotent? Kendall: Speak to these two questions in a direct manner.
If it is to lead, tell us where the leader will come from and how he will be found. And then say, what will happen is no such leadership appears. Larry
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the general interpretation of this essay already found in this thread. It is simply propaganda. I would add a couple of points: His use of Gadamer illustrates the very thing that is wrong with his essay. His theory, that the best way to interpret opposition to “queer theology” is to call it homophobia, is a theory that predetermines what data is suitable to use. His method determined his outcome, his truth. Furthermore, this strategy of singling out a few texts and reinterpreting them is one that has been used for the last thirty+ years. What makes it propaganda is the simple truth that the Scriptures and Tradition are actually quite coherent and simple about what constitutes a marriage. That teaching is not hard to find, and it requires no mental gymnastics. Its there in Genesis, is quoted by Jesus in Mark 10, etc… When it comes to the world behind the text, the world of the text, and the world in front of the texts, there is a coherent, positive description of male and female, of fruitfulness, fidelity, leaving and cleaving, that is revelatory of what it means to be human, and revelatory of God’s own character and relationship to us (a sacrament).
Then, there’s this truly odd bit of putting Hooker and Borg together. Hooker’s argument that the Scriptures must be read ecclesiasly does not mean they are to be read metaphorically. As the author represents Borg, the whole body of scripture is supposed to be read as metaphor, as myth. Hooker certainly is no prisoner to historicism; like Pascal he knows there are passages that must be read literally and others spiritually. But he is absolutely and totally clear that the substance of doctrine, that which is in the Creed, is REVEALED, and is not in any sense the fruit of reason. He is totally clear that the content of doctrine is not something we already knew, or could know, and the Bible provides some especially useful stories to articulate what we already actually know.
Part of me would like to write a serious rebuttal…but who would read it except the folks who already see the essay for what it is, propaganda?
This whole essay is nothing but support for the gay/lesbian agenda at best. The autho has no concept of the meaning of homophobia or violence. Homophobia is the fear of homosexuals, not the dilike of them or what they do. Apparently the modern enlightened ones have rewritten the dictionary as well as the Bible. As for violence, come look through my scrapbook of violence. 39 months in Viet Nam, a few weeks in the Faulkland Islands, A few monthis in Iraq and the middle east 17 years ago. Come look at violence from a veterans point of view. The Bible commits no violence towards gays. It does tell them without any doubt that what they do is WRONG. Why is it that Christians aare the ones being persecuted from within their own churches by the likes of Integrity etc. The GLBT agenda is death, not life and I for one refuse to embrace death in any of its forms. The author of this essay is totally misinformed and totally out of touch with reality. Like I said, if he wants to know violence, I can show him what the real result of real violence are, from the scars on my own body to the list of names of my friends and comrads in arms that never came home. Then you will know violence. Until then, don’t try and play victim, it isn’t very becoming.
drummie (#19),
This is a bit of an off-topic aside, but thanks for putting your life on the line by serving in the military. Greater love has no man…
I agree with you that the gay community and its straight pro-gay advocates are much too prone to talk about “violence” committed against this indeed harrassed minority group. You’re right that such language downplays and minimizes the true violence being perpetrated in our world, no least in inexcusable acts of terrorism against innocent civilians.
I also agree with you that the author is playing the victim card in this article, and you’re right, it’s “unbecoming,” to say the least. It’s one of the dysfunctional roles in our dysfunctional Anglican family system.
As a veteran, I salute you. For too long, the left wing of the Church has been glorifying the idea that pacifism is the only really Christian stance with regard to war and violent conflicts. It reminds me of what the late, great Archbishop of Canterbury during WWII, William Temple, said in that regard. His witty comment:
“I thank God for pacifists. And I thank God there are so few of them.”
David Handy+
On violence: One of the more disturbing aspects of the infamous video of bishop Andrus in the Gay Pride parade was his juxtaposition to the s/m crowd. Despite all the claims to monogamy, life-long fidelity, no-violence/love, it seems like if one buys into their agenda, one ends up in a gay pride parade with the whips and leather bunch.
Of course, there are heterosexuals who do such things…but such taboo crossing behavior seems to be part of the fabric of the lbgt thing, where it would be a defilement of the marriage bed.
My son was on a military exercise in California during a gay pride “festival”. There were christians there that were witnessing the love of Christ to gay people. The christians were spit on, suffered actual physical violence and were greatly demeaned in general. This claim of “violence” seems like a good skirt to hide behind by the pro gay crowd.
one can make the Gene Robinson issue a matter of many words, but at root it is a simple issue: If GR had been living in an illicit heterosexual relationship or had been a practising bank robber, or a known serial coveter of his neighbors’ oxen, he would not have been ordained. By fixating on the nature of the particular sin, we miss the more important point – that bishops are expected to have developed the spiritual discipline and maturity to have a grip on the universal tendency toward sin. Great damage has been done to God’s larger church by both sides of this debate through over-emphasis on the particular sin, rather than focussing on the qualities we must expect from spirtual/pastoral leaders in a hierarchical church.