You can listen to the interview here ... read "Keeping the Faith" here ...
and "Saving Grace" here
Here's the part that got me:
Quoth the Archbishop: Regarding Robinson, one thing I've tried to make clear is that my worry about his election was that the Episcopal Church hadn't made a general principled decision about the blessing of same-sex unions or the ordination of people in public same-sex partnerships. I would think it better had the church actually taken a view on that before moving to the individual case. As it is, someone living in a relationship not theologically officially approved by the church is elected to a bishop — I find that bizarre and puzzling.
How very ... British ... of His Grace "to make clear" that his "worry" over +Gene's election wasn't that he's homosexual but that he's honest.
Shocking.
I mean, REALLY!
Perhaps as this "listening process" evolves I shall have the chance to share with His Grace the list of things I find bizarre and puzzling about the church on HIS side of the Pond. Or perhaps not.
6 comments:
Perhaps His Grace is not familiar with the history of the church in the U.S. Not as though I'm an expert in it, but I seem to recall that something similar happened with the ordination of women. That the first ones were done without official sanction, and were "regularized" or something like that later.
Maybe he'd be less puzzled had he been paying better attention.
This argument – that we should settle the principle before applying it to specific instances – is one that I find among the most troubling and disingenuous in this whole controversy. It is exactly contrary to the entire history and tradition of decision-making in the English-speaking world. Our common law is based on the concept that we deal with the case at hand – and no more. Over time, the principle emerges out of the accumulation of individual cases. The wisdom – indeed brilliance – of the common law comes from its implicit recognition that we, human beings, make better decisions when we are dealing with real, live individuals than when we are trying to establish general, sweeping, abstract rules that apply to every case. I think Rowan Williams knows this, but he fails (or refuses?) to see its application to the election of Gene Robinson.
Per valeriem: "This argument – that we should settle the principle before applying it to specific instances – is one that I find among the most troubling"
I wonder how His Grace feels about Rosa Parks, Birmingham jail, & MLK, Jr.? Without them & other "specific instances" like them, segregation would still be the de facto law of the land. Test cases drive new laws, not the other way around. 'Twas ever thus, far as I know.
I wonder how His Grace feels about Rosa Parks, Birmingham jail, & MLK, Jr.? Without them & other "specific instances" like them, segregation would still be the de facto law of the land.
But while segregation was the de facto law in some areas, it was in fact actually against the law. What Rosa Parks and the rest did from a legal viewpoint was to force local custom to comply with the law. This is different. There is no Church law that says that Bp. Robinson's relationship with his lover is right or permissible, and much to support the contention that it is wrong.
It's also different because Rosa Parks, et. al. were being discriminated against because of their very beings (that they were black). The issue that makes Bp. Robinson different from his predecessors is not his nature, it is his behavior and his contention that it is not sinful - that it should not just be tolerated but accepted and celebrated.
What the ABC has pointed out quite correctly is that if a consensus had been established that a sexually active homosexual relationship was acceptable to God and man before Bp. Robinson had been ordained, then we would not have this schism. The proponents of his ordination were more concerned with their idea of justice than they were with communion. So it should be no surprise that the communion would react to this lack of concern as they have.
I seem to recall that something similar happened with the ordination of women.
What I see as the big surprise to the proponents of his ordination is that they thought this analogy would apply, and it hasn't. The reaction to this act has far more intense than the reaction to women's ordination. Part of that was what has occurred regarding women's ordination - it has been seen that when it was established it was promised that it would be optional, but now the cry of "justice" has been raised and it is required, regardless of the beliefs of anyone concerned, even bishops. This is being seen as headed down the same path.
The second issue is that there's a difference between being a woman and behaving as a sexually active homosexual. Being a woman is not in and of itself sinful. Being a homosexual is not in and of itself sinful. Engaging in homosexual sexual activity is seen as sinful, and so far the proponents of Bp. Robinson's ordination have not been able to convince any but a very small minority of the Communion that this is wrong. And they have convinced the rest of the Communion that they are not concerned about the Communion's opinion on the matter and will do everything they can to proseltyze this viewpoint using not just spiritual reasoning but financial and legal levers wherever they can. Thus, the reaction.
Basically, the American church is being seen as doing whatever it wants and redefining doctrine however it desires regardless of what the rest of the Communion thinks. Then it's surprised when people say "you are breaking the bonds of communion".
It is exactly contrary to the entire history and tradition of decision-making in the English-speaking world. Our common law is based on the concept that we deal with the case at hand – and no more. Over time, the principle emerges out of the accumulation of individual cases.
The courts do not make the law in America; that's the purview of the legislature. The courts do sometimes tell the legislative and executive branches that laws they have made conflict with previous laws that have precedence (and the Constitution has precedence over all other law), but they do not make law.
RonF
"But while segregation was the de facto law in some areas, it was in fact actually against the law."
I don't know what planet you lived on in the 1950s, but I was growing up in Texas and let me tell you, segregation was NOT against the law. It WAS the law. Interracial marriage was criminal misconduct in some states right up until 1967 when the Supreme Court overturned miscegenation laws.
--John G.
John G., I live on the planet where the Constitution overrides State law when it comes to basic human rights. I'm well aware that laws against miscegnation and other "Jim Crow" laws were on the books for quite some time in various states until overturned by the Supreme Court based on the Constitution. My point is that the Constitution does exist, the principles of equality of the races before the law existed in it and was able to be applied. In this case there is no equivalent higher law blessing what Bp. Robinson is engaged in.
RonF
Post a Comment