Thursday, June 15, 2006
Late Breaking News
The Primate of England and Archbishop of York testifies at SCECAC hearings, then has conversation with blogger priest that explains what must be done for Windsor compliance. Puts +Tom Wright's comments in some light. Also indicates what kind of balance ++Rowan might be trying to strike. What a terrible thing it is to be in the hands of the Living God, eh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
But as I wrote at Fr. Jake's. "Comply or else" is not an adult way to go about talking among Christians and is frankly not an Anglican approach. I'm beginning to think I didn't leave the Roman Church at all.
And given that the Communion as a whole has been silent when lgbt folk are on the Cross persecuted by fellow Anglican Christians, bishops no less, the words of ++York show the one-sidedness of a heterosexual Communion that has yet to listen to us, muchless on panels that make all of the decisions about us. Persecution of lgbt Christians is also a serious break in the Communion, indeed anathema worthy, and destroys friendship. Not to mention, blasphemes our Holy Baptism and God. Where is that challenge being taken up? Where is +Wright on that matter or ++Cantuar or ++York.
Silence.
One hundred years from now, that will be the testimony remembered about these men.
He's the Archbishop of York, and he's from Uganda. He's not going to say everything. From the conversation quoted, I inferred that he was supportive of the general program. That alone is big. ++Rowan really hasn't been caught saying things like that lately. His objection was to speed. Why, I wonder? Why would he talk of a strong Biblical argument being made? I seriously think ++Sentamu believes in mutual reform of the North and South. He, after all, was a Ugandan judge. He probably knows the situation of GLBTs in his country rather well. And anyone who says that there is a strong Biblical argument to be made either believes that things should change within his lifetime or is exactly as you say.
I'm still quite committed to general moratoria in order to comply with Windsor. I don't see that on the table.
I also know a few African priests in this country with whom I've discussed this issue. They initially are quite confused for reasons having to do with taboos and cultural reception of the Scriptures. Yes, let's excoriate the power games of some of the Primates, who should know better and yet do evil. But we must be very conscious that we live in an age of global telephone. What unique things we do in the life of our church have to be explained to the parishioners in thousands of villages where such things are not talked about or there may be lynching (thought that may be global telephone). There may be time necessary to equip them.
I'm afraid our other honest option at this point is to shove off with bird flipped at the persecutors, but that will merely leave them to remain blissfully in error.
No. But have you noticed that the only thing these bishops do say is with regard to the actions of Canada and the U.S.? They become quite silent or conciliatory with regard to the actions of Nigeria and Uganda and Zimbabwe. The Windsor Report was quite strong that harm to homosexual persons comes close to anathema. I don't see how we can have conversations when in such places we are prevented from "existing" by Church-sponsored secular laws. That's a deal breaker for conversation that isn't just about rupture of institutional communion but about the very Body in bodies.
I think ++Semantu's objection to speed is valid and workable for the greatest good and I appreciate that, but only if the Communion can get serious about the supposed listening processes. Otherwise, at some point the calls for listening become hollow lies meant to skirt dealing with our faithful lives while fellow bishops actively persecute those who have the courage to say "I am a gay Anglican Christian".
By general moratoria I assume you mean no bishops, no blessings. I agree with you for the sake of the conversation and would be quite satisfied that this would be a cruciform expression of our commitment at this time by all of us.
But what I continue to hear from these bishops (and from our own) is attempts to justify the building of our conversations on my back and those like me by too many episcopal leaders and that kind of leadership builds dividing walls, mitigates severely their capability to pastor queer folk, and is a serious flaw in their claims to represent the unity of the Church catholic for we too are members of that Body. What it says is that the Church catholic is only heterosexual Christians. That is the flaw in Windsor which general moratoria repairs--it recognizes that the Church is straight and queer Christians and that we are in this together and we are all under scrutiny at this time.
If we go for moratoria only on queer folk, I find that alternative pastoral care will be necessary even in Canterbury with regard to much of our faithful lives as Christians, indeed, as I understand it, such is already the case given the work of ministers in Changing Attitude and the like.
In essence, I agree with you, but because I don't see general moratoria on the table, I fear we will go the route of specific moratoria, and I'm not sure if I can be party to such a thing.
Let's see where this goes. I pretty much am going to say I have no power in myself but only through Him who preventeth me. If this leans where you think, I will get off my knees and see if I can communicate with anyone I know in real life in Columbus. Reading ++Archbishop Sentamu's comments, it is ridiculous that general moratoria (and you have my meaning) should not be on the table.
My comments below on +Wright are not quite as clear as they should be,
"But at this point, we reassessors have no assurances that border-crossing will be punished, nor that the parts of Lambeth I.10 we like will be enforced. Thus, if you're going to quote committee documents or Lambeth resolutions (you only do so implicitly) as law to us, you must simultaneously give assurances that the whole of the law is enforceable in some settled tribunal. And the thing is, my Lord, it's not."
"The parts of Lambeth I.10 we like" is exactly what you are discussing. It's not just immature treatment (or if we were immature), it's bad law if you go for legalism.
Caelius,
Your remarks to +Wright are spot on. I'm sick to death of having only portions related to U.S. and Canadian actions in Windsor or part of Lambeth l.10 used as law while the other is advisory or ignored without consequences, some of which I might add violate Nicaea.
That is the worst sort of law, being arbitrary and unjust. Either the whole is enforced or Windsor and Lambeth cannot be accepted as law. That seems to be where the reasserters fall down. I think I was trying in my original proposal that you recrafted into a resolution to find a way to work within the framework of those who think of the portions "I don't like" as law by applying the law more fully--building a fence around the law, to use Jewish terms, so that those conversations could happen but so also so that lgbt Anglicans were not scapegoated.
I'm unclear about whether you thought my treatment was immature or what you were talking about in your closing.
I'm all for whole hog because I think it will free us all in the end, but the present treatment by the likes of +Wright won't settle matters in the end.
BTW: Amba at Ambivablog has commented about our union rite (third article down). It's interesting how an agnostic can be more gracious and I think more faith-filled than many a Christian. Some of the comments I just had to breath deeply as I can't respond to this kind of stuff anymore and be sane.
I was trying to say something like, "It's not just that +Wright is treating us immaturely or as if we were immature Christians..." It was a play on words that didn't quite come off.
I read the Ambiva comments. They seem mild to me, but then again, I have been known to read David Virtue, a guaranteed way of obliterating one's sense of decency.
I avoid certain blogs for my own well-being. Besides Mr. Virtue once misquoted me on his site after he contacted me by e-mail "real nice like". I had no idea who he was at the time.
Post a Comment