First answer is that it’s God’s mercy that Frank Griswold is Presiding Bishop at this time. The man seems like a milquetoast, but his character is solid – and he is so compassionate, irenic, and peace-bearing that it takes a real hardnose to insist on arguing with him. If anyone can prevent schism, he’s the man to do it – and I think God had that in mind when He called him.
Second answer is that the decisions of Lambeth are not binding on any member church, and John Shelby Spong’s (admittedly biased) account of the backstage maneuvering that led to that resoluition is a real eye-opener. Essentially, Spong and a moderate conservative South African bishop agreed to draft a resolution on human sexuality that would not violate anyone’s principles, and confirmed this arrangement with George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who then proceeded to stab them in the back by ramming through amendments from the conservative bishops that completely rewrote their draft.
As for the “Scripture condemns” portion, let me state affirmatively that Scripture condemns gay sex acts as a casual gratification of lust, along with about every other sort of sex act you can name in the same context. I think it’s up to the individual to decide whether that condemnation extends to gay sex acts in other contexts, and then act accordingly. You have to read it in context, of course – and that context includes not sitting in judgment over your brother, but judging his or her acts mercifully and lovingly, in an effort to be of help (and IMHO with as much empathy as you can possibly bring to the table). Gobear and Homebrew are my beloved friends and brothers; if I thought they were endangering their lives and souls, of course I’d tell them so, as a friend ought to.
The same choice people have when they discover that their traditional interpretation of Genesis 1 is mistaken. The same choice we all have when the veil of ignorance is lifted from our faces. The same choice Jesus had when He chose not to condemn the world.
Seeing as a similar situation in England ended with the church leaders essentially forcing the man in question to resign, I really hope Robinson makes it through with wide support.
Could these allegations have had any less substance? I can’t believe this was anything more than an attempt to give the Bishop Elect one day of bad press out of pure spite. They couldn’t have thought these charges any real teeth behind them.
Just heard–they voted to confirm Robinson as bishop by a vote of 62 to 45. Polycarp, this is the most impressed I’ve been by a Christian Church in many a year.
Well, put those being discriminated against into a different category. Would you expect the church to compromise with its members if those members were opposed to black members/ministers/bishops?
IANA Episcopalian, so please don’t think I’m trying to speak for Episcopalians, but when I see institutionalized bigotry against homosexual persons, all I can feel is a sort of pitying disgust. How could someone compromise with something they consider irrationally bigoted?
Or even this: The homophobes have had their way for X years (fill in the age of the Episcopalian Church here); how long must your gay brethren wait to be acknowledged?
I’m not overly familiar with Bishop Griswold, but I have no trouble believing that God has spefically placed him in this position at this time. He has his work cut out for him.
I know that the Lambeth statements are not binding (as we proved today). Still, they reflect the state of the debate within the worldwide church and why (I and others) believe this vote to be overly hasty. I wasn’t aware of the background politics. I will leave to your imagination my opinion of Rev. Spong’s views.
I think this a reasonably defensible interpretation of at least some of the relevent Scripture, though not one that I agree with. (Did I put enough qualifiers in that sentence?) It’s obvious, even on this board, that reasonable people can disagree about it. However I think forcing the issue at this time, in this way, does not promote continued discussion toward finding common ground.
I haven’t been able to find this in the news reports, did the conservatives follow through on their promise to walk out after the vote? If the vote was affirmative, they were going to walk out and gather to pray at the Lutheran church across the street. I haven’t seen a report on whether that happened.
I guess the next thing to watch is the American Anglican Council meeting in October, which they have said will be “extraordinary” as they decide their next steps.
And of course, if they did walk out and go to the Lutheran Church across the street, it’s all Robinson’s fault for not being a good little house faggot and withdrawing because it’s just so gauche to challenge injustice, isn’t it?
The whole tone of the debate from the fossilized minions of Tradition-Over-Love is just sickening…
I wonder what the Lutherans across the street would actually think of this. I mean, I’m sure the Lutheran Church faces many of these same issues, and wouldn’t the more liberal members have to be seething over this association?
Well, I’m still kinda stunned by the fact that they can’t pass a resolution removing the onus from homosexuality, but they can vote in an openly gay man as bishop.
Hmmm… let’s see… shuffles papers no, I’m sorry, I can’t seem to find that particular accusation here. I may have missed another email. Can you point out exactly where Robinson has been blamed (I don’t think he had a vote today), and who besides you has called him a “little house faggot”?
I didn’t say you made that direct accusation. The article linked to above, however, did suggest that some on the “Tradition” side were seeing things in that light.
And I take full responsibility for describing their expectations of Robinson as “house faggot”. They’re mad at him for not sacrificing himself in an invisible flash of self-defacing martyrdom to preserve their right to be hateful, bigoted idiots…
