 | Religion discussion warning |
Oooh, Big Red Flag Issue! Well... This guy is another reason for me to smile because I'm affiliated with the Episcopalian Church.
He us the Rev. Gene Robinson, Bishop Coadjutor, New Hampshire.
For those of you who don't have any idea what's going on (I didn't thanks to this being TV free summer, until today), at the Episcopal Church General Convention 2003, the house of deputies voted to pass him up the chain to the house of bishops as their blessed and chosen candidate to be Bishop of New Hampshire when the current bishop retires in 2004. The house of bishops will vote at 2pm tomorrow.
Rev. Robinson would be the first openly gay Episcopal Bishop.
The AAC (Anglican American Council) opposed the move, and many lay representatives and clergy are afraid of him becoming Bishop, but he got 2/3 of the vote an only needed a majority. What are they afraid of? Well, that their parishoners (and their money) will leave... but what of it? Really. What of it. Let them go. There's a church for everyone out there, they can find another place of worship the way so many others move to places that are more in line with their personal world view.
I'm quite okay with it.
From what I've read about Rev. Robinson, he is a practitioner of faith. Open about who he is (gay, divorced, father of 2) and very active and giving, he stands in my mind as a symbol of what's good and right in people. Not people who are different. But just people.
I know the Bible has outright passages stating that a man cannot lie with a man and be without sin. It says that the ACT of homosexuality is a sin. It also says that women have to wear coverings over their heads, be quiet and supplicant to men at all times, and you can't have that porkroast you're enjoying right now. It also has dozens of other laws and rules which we as a species pretty much recognize were culturally based for the time the scriptures were being written (ie: no pork? Germs. Your husband dies, you have to marry his brother and no one else. Masturbation? HA! The sin of a Onan - man who didn't want to make a baby with his brother's wife even though the brother had passed on).
Personally, I don't care WHAT you do, hetero or homo, as long as you are faithful to whomever you are with, you don't bring strife into your bed by involving other bodies and hurting feelings, and you remain kind and true and loving to your partner, spouse, significant other, best friend, life partner, old man/lady and the kids you may have and the extended family you group into.
And I'll say this -- I apologize up front if I offend anyone of the Catholic faith by throwing this statement right here... I have kept this out of my journal for quite some time, but here it is:
I'd much rather have a big, fat, honest and caring fluffy poofter-man leading my flock than one who buggers the children behind the parents' backs and does so with the complicity of the head honcho of the organization AND the protection of the state government.
Yes I would.
So, rock on, Gene Robinson. A far better witness for the gospel than Paul Shanley ever was or could be.
I also think that CNN.com's coverage of the conference has been interesting and fair. I have had no TV in the house (other than video tapes)
For more information about the Episcopal Church General Convention 2003, visit the website. By the way, I'm not saying that Episcopalians are more right with stuff than Catholics. Especially keep reading the content below and you'll see where I'm coming from.
I'm just saying that it is good and right to discuss, grow, include and share rather than banish, shame, and denounce. Our pastor read the opening conference comments by the "Primate" of the American Anglican Church (hee hee, Primate) Frank Griswold this morning. And I lift from the ENS webpage here to include what I think is the most poignant thing I've heard anyone say in recent history. Bold emphasis mine.
At this particular moment, it might be also be instructive to remember that we are inheritors of a theological tradition born out of conflict. The 16th century was a difficult time in which opposing theological points of view warred with one another. On the one hand there were the values of the Catholic tradition, and on the other the passions of zealous reformers. Each group was sure that the truth was theirs. However, in the context of common prayer, and a joint yielding to the yoke of Christ mediated by word and sacrament, these opposing points of view found the place of their reconciliation, and gave birth to the Anglican tradition. This was not because either won over the other, but because God graced them to step beyond their positions and recognize one another as brothers and sisters in the breaking of the bread. The genius of Anglicanism was to contain divergent and passionately held points of view. This capacity to contain difference within a context of common prayer is who we as Anglicans are called to be. And this is the charism we bring to this present moment.
These Anglican sensibilities are particularly needed in a world dominated by notions of winning or losing, yes or no, either/or. Unfortunately we are not immune to the ways of the world, and the thinking that so dominates our culture spills over into our community of faith. And yet, I deeply believe that having the mind of Christ means we are able to see reality not as either/or but as both/and. Both/and thinking is reflected in Christian orthodoxy at its best. Here I think of the classical doctrine of the nature of Christ established in the fifth century when heresies which held that Christ was either human or divine were overruled by a church council that chose the route of both/and, declaring Christ to be both fully human and fully divine. The logic of the heretics was overruled by the paradox of orthodoxy.
Of course, practically speaking: we will say yes or no on many matters over these next days. Some of them have the potential to be very divisive. Predictably, the topic of homosexuality has received the most media attention prior to our coming together, and has also been a focus of some of our internal life. I am very aware that there is a great deal of energy on the part of those with various views of the question. Some perceive this as an absolutely decisive moment, and the time for resolving all of the pertinent issues about homosexuality in the life of the church. Here I think it is important that we remind ourselves that the church is always, in some sense, becoming the church, and is continuing to grow toward maturity in Christ. Therefore, anything we do or decide is partial and incomplete, though we hope and pray that it reflects something of the truth into which the Holy Spirit is always seeking to guide us. My prayer is that this Convention will be part of a continuing process of discovery and growth.
Amen. Amen to that. Thank you. I've been surrounded by so many people for so long who believe they are 100% right in their faith. It's nice to hear someone say, hey, it's both/and, we're growing, we're changing, and anything we do is partial and incomplete. Instead of passing down edicts that sit for decades, and then when they change the edict (ie: Vatican II - lifted that ban on red meat, which was originally put in place so fishermen could get more business, not for any reason that Jesus WANTED people to eat fish on Friday. And even though the ban was lifted 3 decades ago, Catholics still don't eat meat on Friday by the droves. Why? Good question... )
Anyway, in case you're wondering, the Vatican is gearing up on it's campaign to ban gay marriage. This is the resolution recently voted on by the Episcopalians. I'm all for the blessing of union. For a long time I've held the idea that "marriage" as a word isn't what it is in the case of same-sex unions... I think that word in and of itself should remain assigned to hetero unions. That said, there is no reason in my mind why a similar legal and recognized union for same-sex couples can't exist... whatever name we want to slap on it.
Hey, while you're at it, Vatican -- legalize child rape. It's just as fair! Ban one, which prevents grownups from making educated loving decisions about how they'd like to spend their lives together, accept the other which victimizes the helpless. Makes a ton of sense. Sorry, sorry. Snarky. Mean. Forgive me. I've got a TON of Catholic friends. I've had some very clear and frank discussions with disinfrancised Catholics. To them I say, there's a church for you out there. Find it. If it's the Episcopal Church or a home church where you sit around, read scripture, eat bread and cheese, drink a bottle of wine and talk -- more power to you. Join in the communion in a place that serves you more comfortably. And if you're Catholic and continue to go to Catholic church and mass, well... work from within to fix the damage and my brothers and sisters -- I'm praying for the Holy Spirit to strengthen your walls. Just remember, you can't change the higher ups. And as long as they continue to allow abuse and neglect, sit upon shitloads of valuable property and assets, and tell YOU to give them more money to defend priests who rape (note -- not "gay" priests, but sick people)... then that's your choice. Good luck to you and God bless.
Wow. Where did all that come from. Again, apologies to any staunch Catholic readers in the midst, which I doubt I have but I'm open to hearing from you. I know Mr. Garfield will send me an email and tell me I'm being too hard on my brethren who kiss the ring, and I willingly accept the scourge of his electronic flogging.
Anyway -- I was going to write here today about Geoff's obsession with tombstones since our geocache last week to an historic cemetery, but you know what, I feel much better now for having put this out here. I talk way too much about my kids anyway, and I really wanted to say these things, and the conference gave me push.
Come what may.
No comments:
Post a Comment