I know I'm moving and not supposed to be doing another post for a couple of weeks (don't tell Connie) but the recent news about Gene Robinson's being excluded from Lambeth next year requires some comment (and I'm far from being the first).
Let's see: a gay bishop equals an illegally consecrated bishop equals (maybe) an archbishop associated with human rights violations equals.....
This grouping of the excluded simply supports what I've said before: we are seeing the church associate itself with the criminalization of gay identity. That's the slippery slope.
The Presiding Bishop has been speaking out on all the right issues, in my opinion: the war, immigration, etc. I am delighted that she is going public on social justice matters that we care about. But her initial response to Williams--let's not get excited--is simply institutional cowardice.
When you are in a bad marriage--TEC and the Anglican Communion, for example--and you have had counseling and have promised to do better and STILL are unfaithful to one another, continue to violate commitments, it is time for a separation. This latest outrage, even if in the end it gets worked out (ok for Gene to come as something else--maybe a goat?), is something KJS and the church needs to reject. Either Gene goes as himself or none of us goes.
Ok, I haven't been invited either, but that's because I'm a deacon. We never get invited to go anywhere. Well, except to leave town. Westward, ho!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It is surprising, and a bit troubling, that no one has been moved to respond to the entries in Ken’s blog which at least imply that the best resolution of the present conflict between the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Communion would be the separation (“divorce,” following Ken’s marriage metaphor) of the those two bodies from one another. This resolution has an ecclesiastical weight at least equal to the political weight of the separation of the American colonies from the British Empire in 1776, yet no word of either support or opposition appears in the blog comments. This may be a comment on the extent to which the blog is actually read, or it may reflect the degree, a very high one, of polarization that exists on this issue, with those who support the proposal feeling that it is so prime facie correct that it needs no corroboration, while those who oppose it find it so repugnant that they wish no connection with it, even in opposition. As for me, I simply recuse myself as both Ken’s good friend and a non-member of the Episcopal Church. Maybe that’s yet another reason for the lack of comment on this momentous issue.
Post a Comment