When Tom Wright gets it totally wrong…
Comments(68) Bishop Tom Wright of Durham is a smart man, much smarter than me. But that doesn’t always mean he’s right. He’s written an op-ed piece in the Times of London that is full of falsehoods, half truths, and distortions. Maybe he didn’t pay enough attention to the Episcopal Church recently? Or maybe he’s trying to sell a particular point of view? He’s clearly intelligent enough to have gotten it right, so I’m baffled.
I encourage you to go read the whole piece. Allow me, here on 7WD, to make a few comments and corrections:
The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States has voted decisively to allow in principle the appointment, to all orders of ministry, of persons in active same-sex relationship.
No, actually. If you read resolution D025 carefully, it says no such thing. We do not have “appointment” to holy orders in this church. We have “discernment” and “call” to holy orders. D025, through our Constitution & Canons, provides plenty of opportunity for people to be challenged in their expressed call to ordained ministry. More to the point, and somewhat disappointing to me, resolution 2006-B033 (the call for restraint on bishops in same-sex partnered relationship) is not explicitly overturned here. So we have both the admission that God will call those whom God chooses (2009-D025), and a remaining call for restraint (2006-B033).
This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion.
Not really. If people in your church, Bishop Wright, were honest, you would see that you have many, many GLBT clergy (in all three orders) now serving your church. We have merely been honest, shining the light of truth on ourselves and the whole world. This is, I believe, a Gospel value. If honesty were a break with the rest of the Anglican Communion, I’d stand with honesty. Fortunately, I know from conversations with lay leaders and priests around the Communion, there are a wide constellation of views. Most people (even from some well-known conservative strongholds) with whom I have spoken do not wish to see a break, and they at least respect the openness and honesty of the Episcopal Church, even when they do not share our views on human sexuality. It is only some bishops, eager to be globetrotting speakers and booksellers, who continue to broadcast the idea that there is an inevitable tear in the Communion.
They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion).
Interesting claim, that. If you study carefully, you will note that there are three moratoria in the Windsor Report. A very good case can be made that the Episcopal Church is one of the only “Windsor Compliant” provinces in the Anglican Communion. The Akinolites and Duncanites have systematically violated the moratorium on parallel jurisdictions, and they have also ignored the Lambeth Conference pleas for a listening process, called for in 1978, 1988, and 1998. Meanwhile, the Episcopal Church has refrained from ordaining further bishops in same-sex partnered relationships since the ordination of Gene Robinson in 2003 (before the Windsor Report was written, by the way).
In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”.
Again, this is breathtaking. It is, in fact, Archbishop Peter Akinola and friends who have done so. They alone have excommunicated themselves from the Archbishop of Canterbury by refusing to share Eucharist with him and others at recent Primates’ Meetings. Many of them have refused to attend the Lambeth Conference. I wish they had not chosen to separate themselves from us, but that is what they have done, especially in creating parallel jurisdictions. And, my English friends, make no mistake about it: soon they will set up parallel jurisdictions in England as well.
Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled.
No, this is neither cynical nor is it double-think. I for one do wish to preserve close relations with my sisters and brothers throughout the Anglican Communion. At the same time, we have a mandate to respond pastorally to the needs of our context. This is not unlike the situation in the Church of England, where thousands upon thousands of same-sex blessings have taken place in churches as clergy have offered pastoral care to their congregations. Some estimates place the number of same-sex blessings in London Diocese alone much higher than the total number of same-sex blessings in the US. (I am hoping to see solid figures here at some point!)
Of course, matters didn’t begin with the consecration of Gene Robinson. The floodgates opened several years before, particularly in 1996 when a church court acquitted a bishop who had ordained active homosexuals.
No, the floodgates of Anglican sects began much earlier, when some people decided they could not abide prayer book revision or women’s ordination. Starting with the Reformed Episcopal Church in the 19th century, people have been breaking off to form their own fiefdoms. Gene Robinson is a convenient excuse for modern schism. Cynical observers think that part of the motivation is so that conservative priests can be created as bishops. I’m not sure I buy that, but one does wonder why this alphabet soup of “Anglican” Christians need so very many bishops.
But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse.
Whaaa? One begins to wonder if Bishop Wright ever read the bits before Matthew in his Bible. Or if he is aware of the practice of polygamy in Muslim cultures. Sure, Medieval Christianity decided that lifelong marriage between one man and one woman was the ideal, but those same Christians taught clerical celibacy. I encourage Bishop Wright to read his Hebrew Scriptures before he says that Jewish and Christian teachers have “always” taught his view of marriage. I wonder if he still adheres to Jesus’ teachings on, say, divorce? If you want to look more broadly, I wonder if Bishop Wright sold all his possessions and gave the money to the poor when he became a follower of Christ? Mostly, I’m astounded at anyone who cites a “Biblical view of marriage” as if that settles it. It’s all much more complicated than that. It’s about love, fidelity, and faithfulness, mostly.
Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations.
So I guess that would make racism or slavery A-OK. Both racism and slavery are very Biblical, by the way. No, I’m afraid Jesus didn’t put any asterisks on the Great Commandment. It is not “love SOME neighbors” but love all neighbors. I find it fascinating that Bishop Wright here argues for contextual or situational ethics and then pretends to cite timeless cross-cultural values in another sentence.
Ways must be found for all in America who want to be loyal to it, and to scripture, tradition and Jesus, to have that loyalty recognised and affirmed at the highest level.
Ah, now the punchline. This was all a justification for supporting the supposed conservative victims. The problem with the fiction of pastoral provision for conservatives is that they are not, in fact victims. No one has ever asked them to leave. No one has said women priests or straight priests have to be in every congregation. Congregations are free to call lesbians or WASPy men, as God guides them. No one will have to perform same-sex blessings. Seminarians can go to Nashotah House or EDS.
But it’s much more convenient to justify schism if one plays the victim card.
Let’s all be clear about two things. First, the Episcopal Church is (imperfectly, to be sure) trying to answer God’s mission imperatives in this place and in this time. Second, we are committed to our bonds of affection with our sisters and brothers overseas. To say otherwise is to distort the truth and to refuse to listen to what our General Convention and our Presiding Bishop have repeatedly said.
Get 7WD by email
Thanks so very much Scott for this well crafted rebuttal to N.T. Wright.
Excellent, excellent post, Scott. An exceptionally well done explanation of the issues and rebuttal to Wright. As you say, Wright is BRILLIANT and far too smart for the arguments he makes. I really like this piece, it’s one of the best things I’ve read through this conference. Thanks!
Moving over from the last post, Scott,
I guess to prove Tom Wright (and much much much less importantly me wrong: please answer the following questions? (And BTW I would love to be wrong!)
1) Will TEC keep to the moratorium on consecrating bishops in same sex relationships?
2) Will TEV keep to the moratorium on authorising public rites of blessing and will bishops who have authorised such rights “express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation”, and/or withdraw from representative Anglican bodies?
(I guess the attendence at Lambeth showed that TEC was prepared to be in breach of that part of the WR report many times over).
Scott,
You wrote,
It seems to me that you’re arguing that because there is an appointment process in TEC that this means that what Wright writes is presumptive. Not at all. The language of D025 simply says has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church which call is tested through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. It’s been pointed out by several liberals that the language of B033-2006 is this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint. That means that once the 2009 Convention sat the call for restraint ceased to have any valid effect.
The bottom line is that for the moratorium to continue, all GC-2009 had to do was to ignore the subject or clarify the moratorium. To pass D025 is to reject both those options, and in doing so to move beyond them.
N T Wright needs to get over himself and his Windsor Report. The Windsor Report has failed because the border crossing continued and no apology was offered for it – it is this which is literally splitting the church, not the disagreements relied upon to justify it, because disagreement and church are practically synonymous throughout the ages, starting with the beginning of the Church as we know it in Acts. The scapegoating and sacrifice of gay people was offered up as required by the Windsor Report, and an apology from that side was forthcoming, but this did not hold the Communion together. DO25 looks to me like a recognition that Windsor failed.
Bishop Wright might be a smart man, but so are you. When I read Wright’s editorial, I immediately questioned the validity of my own, contrary opinion, of the meaning of and motivation behind D025. Unfortunately, this is a very female thing to do, especially when thoughts contradict older, male authority. Also, all my Bishop’s voted against it. I appreciate your very reasoned, thoughtful post. It has helped me reclaim my own opinions and stand up to my full stature in Christ. God bless you, me and us!
Really well thought out and expressed Scott!!!
“We have merely been honest, shining the light of truth on ourselves and the whole world. This is, I believe, a Gospel value. If honesty were a break with the rest of the Anglican Communion, I’d stand with honesty.”
Honesty will not set a person right with his maker. Repentance will. ‘yeah, I broke the window. who cares?’ is honest and unrepentant. Honesty is of course necessary for repentance, but it is not enough to simply recognise your condition. Your response to your condition is what facilitates or blocks the power of the Gospel.
The question is therefore: does God think that homosexual practice is a sin? How sure are we that we have done something which God will approve of, when we argue for the ordination of openly gay clergy?
Remember that God does not commend everyone who comes to Him and says “did we not do x, y & z in your name”. He desires that we understand Him,and develop a passion for His glory to rival the psalmist who loved God’s law so much that he stored it up in our hearts that he might not sin against Him.
Remember too that it is a natural technique of children, on breaking a window, to try to convince themselves that dad won’t be bothered when he returns home. Therefore, if the church is in an uproar about something, there is a good chance that we ought to spend the time seeking objective wisdom on the matter, and from the best possible source.
NT Wright is a great Christian scholar, and you’re right, he is probably smarter than most. If you want to disagree with his stance (which I think is really your intention, rather than disingenuously picking at more incidental aspects of his op-ed piece) then you have to be prepared to engage him on exegetical grounds. What does God think about something? The answer is in the bible. Therefore justify your position on the issue of marriage from the authority of the bible or stop complaining.
The only place you seem to have countered Wright’s main point is when you say marriage is “all much more complicated than that. It’s about love, fidelity, and faithfulness, mostly.”
That seems like a fine-sounding generalisation to me. What is your biblical justification for the “mostly” aspect of that statement?
I think you’re blowing smoke around the real issue with your discussion of incidental matters. Both sides play the victim card. Stop playing the “they’re playing the victim card” card.
While you’re at it, stop propagating the “they want schism in order to sell books” fallacy. Rarely do people ever have truly pure motives for anything they do, but to accuse people of desiring schism in order to gain financially is ludicrous. Wright is smart enough to make wodges of cash in any one of a hundred non-controversial ways. And neither side on this argument sees schism as an ideal scenario.
Finally, your point about racism and slavery is either intentionally obtuse or simply ill-informed. To treat people equally with love (i.e. to “love” your neighbour) does not mean treat them equally in every other respect. Children should not be allowed to drink as much vodka as they like, for example. Preventing them from doing this is discrimination based on love. Learn to love intelligently, by wanting what is best for people. And to want what is best, you must first be certain what is best for people. And who knows what is best for people? God.
Is modern racism justified in the bible?
Is slavery condoned by the bible?
Is discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference the same as discrimination on the grounds of race?
These questions cannot be answered simply. They require nuanced answers which develop an understanding of what slavery, racism, sexuality actually are. They have to be understood sociologically AND theologically if we are to fully understand the biblical position on these issues. Your treatment of them here is offhand and again disrespectful of the intellect behind the comments you are decrying.
The Episcopal Church has shown considerable restraint and humility in its dealings with others in the Communion. I can’t think of any other area where the church holds people accountable for something over which they have no control. The only comparable situations are when we make people second-class citizens because of race or gender. The challenge now, will be to continue to walk in humility with others.
Splendid, Scott! Precise and direct and point-by-point. This is Scott at his very best!
Can you spread this more widely than just your blog? Can you send it to Church Times (or Times-on-Line in England where Wright’s article appeared) and ENS? It should have wider spread and impact.
I agree with Fr. John-Julian; your piece deserves a much greater readership. Consider his suggestions.
Kurt from Brooklyn
This is magnificent, Scott. Thank you very much.
I echo John-Julian’s suggestion that you try to get this published in the British press.
There is a suggestion by a commenter in The Lead on the Episcopal Cafe (not for the first time!) that everyone (in this country, in Britain, maybe especially in Africa) re-read the “Letter from the Birmingham Jail.” If Rowan Williams, or Tom Wright, or Kendall Harmon, or Peter Akinola disagree with Dr. King, let them say so. But then their cards will be on the table.
Bp. Wright spends enough time here selling books and giving lectures to finally ‘get it.’ We do not appoint bishops. He may not have heard but we had a little disagreement with George Windsor in 1776 and the process among other things changed.
He also is famous for telling PB Griswald to veto the episcopal election of Robinson and then reacting with disbelief when Frank explained he had no such authority. It is amazing to me how people can come here, lecture here (hector might be a better word in this case) and still ignore what is going on here.
D025 is a dissapointment to me and a lot of other progressives. It is also about all we can get from this HoB full of ticket punchers. They really want that next conference ticket in England enough to keep the crucified place in place.
No bishop we did not follow the completely dishonorable path you and Dr. Williams are pushing. We really wont cave in to the bullies. Deal with it.
FWIW
jimB
With respect and affection, Scott, your rebuttal is almost as unfair to traditionalists / conservatives as you accuse Tom Wright of being to TEC: “full of half-truths and distortions.”
What overwhelmingly strikes me on reading it is that when we get underneath the specific accusations and counter-accusations, the basic structure of the arguments of *both* sides is the same: “It’s all *their* fault; we’re only being faithful to the Gospel. They’re doing bad. We’re doing good. The situation will change for the better when we win and they are either defeated or repent of their errors.”
To get past the current divisions in TEC / the Anglican Communion, two things must happen.
First, both sides need to get beyond defensive condemnations of the other side and try to see whatever merit they can in the other side’s commitments and convictions.
Second, both sides need to engage in serious self-examination and identify the sins they have committed (particularly against the other side) of which they need to repent — instead of continually pointing out the sins of which the *other* side needs to repent!
When those two things begin to happen, then we might start to find some common ground for the future. I’m praying for it.
Second, both sides need to engage in serious self-examination and identify the sins they have committed (particularly against the other side) of which they need to repent — instead of continually pointing out the sins of which the *other* side needs to repent!
Ummmm… both sides need to stop be so self centred and start talking TO gay and lesbians, including clergy and bishops, instead of using us as pawn to fight these stupid culture wars. I am sick and tired of being a thorny issue, instead of a brother in Christ.
Sexual morality is supposed to be about us and our well being, isn’t it?
Scott,
“Totally wrong”? Come on, this is political speak when your orders are to do theology. You’ve proven that you have the guts to be cute with the Bishop, but will you have a conversation with him that deals with the issues he raises, like the basis for human identity? You’re not intimidate to talk theology with the bishop now, are you?
Scott–this is so calmly toned and well-organized; when did you have the time to do this in the midst of General Convention? This needs much wider distribution! Thanks for all you are and do–I’m grateful for your leadership among us.
Scott,
Thank you for the reasoned rebuttal.
Frankly, I think we give too much credence to bishops outside of TEC who feel they must make such statements, as if we were wayward children. I daresay that if any TEC bishop had written an op-ed in a US newspaper about, say, the recent discussion in the CoE about women bishops, there would be roars abroad from Bp. Wright and others.
We’ve made it very clear that this is where Spirit is leading us, and that we seek not to impose anything on other members of the Body. We are not of mind on many other issues, but only this gets certain bishops all hot and bothered.
Thanks so much for this. You express my sentiments quite well. And I agree with Fr. John-Julian that this deserves much wider circulation and attention.
Good response.
@Peter O:
To say a resolution loses all relevance after the next convention sits is a strange argument. If GC doesn’t pass a new resolution each convention about the tithe being the Biblical Standard of Giving, does that mean the Episcopal Church no longer holds to that standard?
If what you say is true, then each GC would be filled with deciding which resolutions to pass again and again and again and again. Heaven help us if we miss one about being saved by God’s grace alone.
If you could cite some parliamentary law reference to support your position, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
@Fr. Gunn
Thank you. I don’t know where and how you found the time to write such a good reply to that editorial.
I know I struggled a bit to get out a personal blog note on this subject last night. Of course, writing about something does help to clarify one’s own opinions.
I think this is a brilliant rebuttal to Tom, and I agree with you, why is it always the conservatives who are the victims, while gay people & women are the ones being marginalised and disenfranchised in the church?
Something else that he said, which you didn’t quote, was that ordination is not a right, but a gift of grace (to paraphrase slightly). I feel that in actual fact this is exactly what TEC has in mind through D025, as it is focussing on discernment rather than obstructive rules & requirements for being ordained.
You are also absolutely right that the CofE is highly hypocritical in it’s approach to this. As is often the case over here, if it is done quietly without drawing attention to it, then there is no problem, and it is only when the reality of practice in many churches is publicly acknowledged and recognised that problems occur.
A previous writer states: “Is discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference the same as discrimination on the grounds of race?”
To me (and thanks, Scott, for a reasoned reponse), the words “sexual preference” convey a core element of the disagreement. It is my view as a person, a therapist, and a general skeptic, that the expression of human sexuality is as much a “preference” as are my size 12 narrow feet. That is to say, our eventual sexuality is something we’re born (created) with.
I was born to mainfest that characteristic foot configuration. I had no more choice about that physical characteristic than I “chose” one morning to be heterosexual in my orientation. My expression of sexuality is as much a part of my creation by God as are my size 12 feet. True, I could modify the latter by painful surgery but I would be harmed greatly in the process. As a therapist, I say the same to those that espouse “repararitive” therapies. You do great harm and cause injury. Sexuality and its expression in loving relationships is not a choice but an element of creation. I do not mean to trivialize the argument but by analogy, show that sexual orientation is as much a part of our creation as are other physical dimensions and characteristics. I would point out that the left handed, etc., were once judged to be sinister and out of sync with creation.
I have found it useful over the years to judge something by its impact on the wider community. Does a couple of the same sex living in a mutually faithful relationship (hopefully in a state that allows the couple to enjoy the civil benefits of a recognized union) cause harm to others? Does it threaten marriage between heterosexuals? I can’t for the life of me see how it does; rather, like all faithful partnerships and marriages, it serves as part of a community’s foundation and strength.
It is sad to me that there is so much storm and fury over this issue. To me, it is a non-issue. Poverty, war, preventable sickness, discrimination, are far more compelling issues to which I should devote resources.
In studying NT Wright, I always find myself at odds with his viewpoints of biblical teachings. He seems to rely on Paul more than on anything or anyone else. I am grateful to Paul for being the first Christian theologian and to NT Wright for being his pupil and interpreter, but I think that scripture and faith go way beyond those limits as God goes way beyond all of our limits.
Thank you for your good piece.
Bill A. “preference” is a wrong term. I would always differentiate between feelings of attraction (which can be unavoidable) and acting on those feelings. Sorry for the confusion!
Contrary to the opinion of most posters, I think this (and Tom Wright’s original piece in the Times) are classic examples of liberal-conservative communication or, rather, mis-communication. I am rather of Tom Wright’s opinion, but I do think that he was seeing red when he wrote it and may have been less than charitable at times. That isn’t to say that he’s wrong because the situation seems pretty clear to me. TEC has been asked to honour the moratoria mentioned in the Windsor Report. They did and now the House of Bishops and another committee is suggesting they shouldn’t. How that isn’t breaking with the instruments of unity in the Communion (and arguably,much of the Communion itself) on this issue simply escapes me and this article does nothing to explain that. It merely shifts the blame to the conservatives which is rather convenient. Both sides have been shifting blame onto each other quite effectively throughout this entire controversy. It really saves the trouble of admitting one’s own faults in feeding the bitterness and strife.
Before I get jumped on, let me note that the Father Gunn’s remarks about the conservatives are correct. They have split. They have been encouraged by some conservative primates. That is in contravention of the moratoria as well. And this group has not really been disciplined as they should. Agreed. That doesn’t excuse actions which will simply make it worse.
The moratoria were designed as a fire-break, not as a final solution. I agree, they aren’t working as well as they can, but even a partial fire-break is better than none. However, as far as I can see, the fire is raging worse than ever and TEC is contemplating taking the fire-break down. Does that strike anyone as unwise?
Frankly, we all, liberals and conservatives, should be getting worried when a leading voice of the moderate conservatives, who has openly opposed seccessionist conservatives, who has stated a committment to staying and working things out, is actually talking schism. Frankly, I don’t care who started it, the schism is only going to grow from here.
Peace,
Phil
Then I would return to my argument regarding community impact. Is there any harm in acting on feelings of attraction that aren’t heterosexual? I think that’s what we’re talking about? I’d argue, no, that the test of something is whether it builds or destroys relationships within a community. And obviously, would argue that mutually faithful adult couples of any combination of orientation are a positive in a community, far from being a negative force.
Attraction between adults and children, if acted on, causes great harm. Again, the test is the impact on the community. The part about “love and charity” with one’s neighbor is core to my faith.
Scott, you’ve done a great job here. I’m going to link to this post.
Excellent, articulate and HONEST rebuttal Scott.
I truly hope this gets the wider distribution it deserves, I’ve already sent the link on to m circle
Bill A, the argument you return to is constrained by the subjective limitations of sociology. Sociology goes so far in discerning what is best for society, but it cannot deal with theological issues because its remit is purely horizontal.
As Christians, we ought to know that the bible is more than simply a sociology handbook, as though God’s primary concern was that we could figure out how to get along with one another. Indeed, certain aspects of biblical teaching are diametrically opposed to sociological reasoning.
Our guidance in this matter (as in any matter) ought to come from God (if he is God, and does indeed have an opinion on how humans express their sexual desires). Are we prepared to submit to God and follow him wherever he leads? I believe he leads us beyond sociological reasoning and into a relationship of complete submission and trust where we can become servants of his great love and glory.
You may not think that there is biblical justification for the argument that says people must choose between same-sex union (as a manifestation of sin) and reconciliation with God. However, if there is, be assured that God’s glory makes up a thousandfold for any thing he asks us to give up, whether it’s pride, or a good job, or a relationship. Do we have the faith to trust God over sociology?
I believe my guidance comes from my understanding of God’s will for us as set forth by our Lord Jesus Christ. That being said, I accept that this is “my understanding” and accept your right, socially and theologically, to come to a different conclusion. I have seen scripture used to exclude, having grown up in the twilight ears of Jim Crow in rural Louisiana, so, in reaction to that, I am deeply concerned when I see scripture used in what, in my opinion, is a contravention of the Second Great Commandment. If my neighbor does me (as a proxy for society), no harm, then my care for my neighbor and recognition of my neighbor as a full member of the human community must be unconditional. That goes to the point of not denying my neighbor full communion and participation at all levels as an agent in that communion with God. Communion, ordination, etc.
This is not well put but is the best I can do. My faith tells me that I am not wrong (That is somewhat short of an assertion of being right). I may be, but I will let God sort it out at a time of God’s choosing. Am I going against some elements of scripture? As many understand them, yes. As I understand them, no.
I could advance the trivialized argument that since we plant two crops in the same field, mix wool and cotton, etc., why bother with following other injunctions. I won’t. I’ll stand on my position that my faith, based on the words of Jesus, tells me inclusion in my church of those whose sexual orientation is same sex at all levels is correct.
Scott, Thank you for deconstructing the argument of NT Wright. Your piece is worthy of international news…but, oh how the media twists to make news scandalous. Let’s get on with being a Christian Church and finally begin to really live and act our Baptismal Covenant and not just give lip service to it. Blessings.
Resolutions are not canons — we don’t collect them into bindings and make sure they are maintained and honored from yesy to year. Sometimes (often?) They just fade into obscurity as the issue which engendered them falls from prominence.
Without an explicit repeal, no one can pretend that they are not aware of the issue and what we said in 2006 about it. But at the same time, without renewal, it begins to fade with the passage of time.
When next that TEC is faced with consent to a partnered gay bishop (and I believe that B033 says nothing about celibate gay candidates) we will have to weigh being true to ourselves and being true to our relationship with the Communion. It will not be an easy choice. It will be a painful one.
Interesting analysis, Scott.
In the end, though, It may not really matter who’s right or wrong. The perception of what D025 means may end up being more consequential than the truth. And the widespread perception among conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans around seems to be that D025 overturns B033. Our intentions notwithstanding, that perception will have consequences.
Another perception out there is that those who are getting their way at General Convention in the increasing absence of a conservative counterbalance are engaging in a legislative form of realpolitik. That perception is not helped when someone says (as a deacon said to me yesterday): “It’s amazing the progressive things we can accomplish once we get the conservatives out of the way.”
Brilliant! Thank you for this wonderful piece.
Peter Carey
@rudih
Of course, if you are right, D025 also will fade into the sunset.
A point I would like to make is that, since neither 2009-D025 or 2006-B033 was a resolution to amend a canon, there is no “enforcement mechanism” for either. They both sit there, looking at us through puppy-dog eyes, saying “Please take us home.” We shouldn’t pay attention to one and not the other just because it is cuter.
We keep hearing about the honesty the Episcopal Church showed by passing D025. That same honesty should require us to admit that B033 is still there. While it may not make a difference in, say, 50 years, it will make a difference in the next 3 years.
May the Episcopal Church deal as honestly with B033 as is is said to be acting with the passage of D025.
@rudih
One more thing. Yes we do put the resolutions from previous years into binders and preserve them from year to year. Not only that, you may search the on-line records of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church from the year 1976 onwards.
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/
Peace.
Scott’s entry is commendable but, “billallbritten on July 15th, 2009″ (in response to “Beat Attitude”) is AWESOME. Bravo!
…and God bless TEC!
Bill A : thanks for your responses, you obviously have some supporters on here
“If my neighbor does me (as a proxy for society), no harm, then my care for my neighbor and recognition of my neighbor as a full member of the human community must be unconditional. That goes to the point of not denying my neighbor full communion and participation at all levels as an agent in that communion with God. Communion, ordination, etc.”
With respect (and I do mean that!), can I suggest that you’ve got to read your whole bible, and not simply focus on those parts which seem to support your sociological position? Is the above what the bible explicitly teaches, or is it purely a limited sociological construct?
To begin with, Jesus didn’t teach “live and let live”. He taught active, sacrificial love, even to the point of death.
The psalmist says in Psalm 1 that the wicked will not stand in the day of judgement, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. Is this exclusive? Yes! Again and again, God talks about how sinners and evil-doers will have no part in his blessing. Christ talks about it. Membership *is* exclusive in the Christian faith. It is predicated on certain conditions being met. It is predicated on our RIGHTEOUSNESS. Without total righteousness, we can never expect to see God’s glory “with unveiled faces”.
Lucky for us (understatement!) God instructs us that these *conditions* which facilitate our righteousness *are* to be made available to everyone.
The conditions of membership…That we recognise our own sinfulness, and recognise sin *as* sin, and turn from it. This is the first condition. The second condition is that we cast ourselves on God’s grace, and on the redeeming act of his dear Son. It could be argued that a third condition (which results from the first two) is that our lives reflect this change of heart as confirmation of our faith. We do not earn our salvation/righteousness, but we must take hold of what is offered.
Therefore let us not be under the illusion that for God “social inclusion” is top of his agenda. RIGHTEOUSNESS is at the top of his agenda for us, in order that He might be fully glorified and reflected in us.
Calling something “not sin” which actually IS sin might smooth over issues of social inclusion, but it is a cancer in our pursuit of righteousness. It hamstrings the first condition of salvation.
Therefore I would suggest in order to consider whether God sees same-sex union as sin, you must first release yourself from the unsupported notion that the God of the bible prefers social inclusion to righteousness. You surely know enough of God’s love to be willing to submit what *you* think is right to what *God* thinks is right?
Then you must examine the biblical text to see whether the case against same-sex union is legitimately supported. If you still wish to argue the point, then engage on those grounds, for that is where people like NT Wright will happily engage with you: having the same desire for discerning truth.
And can I also suggest that it IS entirely possible to show great love to people with same-sex attraction even when denying them what they desire? You do this the same way you turn every sinner from their sin: by revealing the glory of God to them and helping them realise that everything else *can* be counted as loss (whether blessings we are attached to OR sins we are attached to) for the sake of knowing Him.
Kind regards
Beat
Thank you Scott. Please get this piece into wider distribution. For as much as I am grateful to Tom Wright and Rowan for their theological brilliance, they frequently can’t seem to understand the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit if it doesn’t fit into their schema. The Episcopal Church is I believe walking humbly, doing justice and loving mercy.
Peace, Jon
@ Beat and Alan K.
You say that we must justify these actions on the basis of scriptural evidence. I would agree. I would also say that this has already been done many many times in other places/publications.
I would, in turn, ask you why should a rebuttal of Wright’s foolishness be required to include a scriptural rebuttal as well; Wright does not provide a scriptural basis of his position in his original editorial.
After all, the scriptural basis of homophobia has been demolished for many years and with a publication history that increases with each passing month and day. The old “interpretation” that homosexuality is condemned as a sin in scripture has been bankrupt for a very long time.
Why should a rebuttal of an interpretation of a resolution need to include, yet again, another rebuttal of an already dead interpretation of an entirely different document.
I fear we are looking at the same documentation and coming to different conclusions (now that’s a new one for Bible study )).
I can only close with the following: Yes, I do selectively assign significance to parts of the Bible, notably the parts which quote Christ. The rest is commentary, in my view, when one gets beyond the two commandment, …love God…, and …love your neighbor… It gets a bit too complicated when I move beyond those two.
So, here’s how I evaluate my actions (and those of others):
1. Submission to the aforementioned two commandments
2. The extent to which my actions bring people together
3. The extent to which a caring, loving community is strengthened by my actions.
Best wishes,
Bill
“The answer is in the Bible”
One really does wonder if Beat practices, with all seriousness, the exegesis of Holy Scripture which is central to the arguments laid out here, and aptly summarized by the quote given above from his/her first post yesterday?
To claim that the Bible is some kind of answer book, into which one can delve for one-liners resolving all of life’s issues is completely alien to the Christian exegetical tradition. The hermeneutical method of ‘inerrancy reading’ is a modern phenomenon, which many regard as a false over-reaction by Biblical fundamentalists to developments in society – readers who previously knew little support for their methods from contemporaries or from tradition.
To pick out ‘proof texts’ in the way that Beat has done consistently seems to contradict his/her own injunction to read the texts as a whole. I’m sure that, should Beat have the resources and skils necessary, reading the Scriptural texts in their original languages would reveal a great many nuances which are inevitably lost in translation, and also highligh the great difficulty in conveying the meaning of words from Hebrew and Greek, the sense of which is ambiguous even for the most learned scholar, and a number of which are key to discussion of human sexuality in particular.
The texts of Sacred Scripture are a gift of the Holy Spirit to the world, conveyed through a large number of writers, sensitive to God’s activity in the world and in history, over many thousands of years, writing in socio-historical situations vastly different from one another’s and from ours. Even a basic comprehension of the complexity of the textual evolution of the Bible reveals how misdirected a ‘God gives us the answers in the Bible’ reading really is.
And it should never be forgotten that the canon of Holy Scripture is the gift of the Holy Spirit through the Church. The only reason those books are bound together between two covers (and let us not forget that there is much disagreement in Christendom as to which books constitute the canon of Scripture) is that the Church discerned over several centuries which texts were representative of the tradition, as it was perceived at that time.
The Church has, since the time of Jesus Christ and upon his foundation, been the guardian of Truth; but it is a truth revealed to the world gradually, a truth which is still being revealed to us, and the history of Biblical exegesis stands as testimony to the ever-changing interpretation of those texts over many centuries.
Let us pray that the Spirit of All Truth may move in the hearts of each and every person who turns to God in penitence and faith.
Those who schism with others do lightly bond among themselves.
When next that TEC is faced with consent to a partnered gay bishop (and I believe that B033 says nothing about celibate gay candidates) we will have to weigh being true to ourselves and being true to our relationship with the Communion. It will not be an easy choice. It will be a painful one.
@rudih: If, as I believe, the ECUSA has the opportunity to lead, and lead valiantly, on this issue, then should that unfortunate choice present itself our reasoning must decidedly not be conducted as a matter of choosing between “being true to ourselves and being true to our relationship with the Communion.” This is just as much a false choice as that which continues to be asserted between sanctity and the lives of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. No, should that painful choice ever arise, it will only be meaningful as a prophetic Christian witness provided the Church is collectively understanding itself to be pointing to rectifying work of our Lord Jesus. In him, these divisions do not exist, and those faithful to him are not the one’s imposing division. But, to make this–as the rhetoric surrounding this issue has continually framed the matter–a question of being “true to ourselves,” is decidedly no less a denial of that Gospel, which is the basis of our passionate plea for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. This is not about “our” truth; this is not about “our” polity; this is not about “our” pastoral situation. This is about the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, which proclaims that, as living members of his body and participants in his eternal priesthood, these various divisions by which we set ourselves up over against one another, sanctimoniously claiming “purity” and “authenticity,” have been destroyed. He is the source of our truth and identity, and this is our great joy and hope. This is I believe what TEC is standing on, but it is not what it is saying. If we can find the voice to speak of the power of the rectifying work of Jesus Christ as the basis for our witness, then we must also state that his Gospel is the only source of our unity, for in him we are crucified even as we go on living. We must face this resolutely, and find the anew the words to speak beyond these disgusting culture wars.
[...] the future holds for the Communion. There is an interesting response to Bishop Wright’s piece here. It is food for thought from another perspective. It is important for me to have a variety of [...]
I think the resolution is a classic example of what General Convention does well: moving on large majorities, not small ones; making room (that is giving permission) for a wide set of possibilities, but requiring little in absolute terms; and affirming what I call the fundamental content of the baptismal action and covenant–well expressed by Presiding Bishop Edmund Browning 24 years ago: there are no outcasts or second-class citizens in the Episcopal Church’s understanding of the baptised people of God. But we should remember,too, that this is a point on the journey, and that the raft is not the shore. Blessings on your work.
[...] This post at Seven Whole Days suggests that Bishop Tom Wright’s assessment of the resolution was inaccurate. [...]
I was amused by the article above; in accusing Tom Wright of writing an article “that is full of falsehoods, half truths, and distortions” Scott manages to fill his critique with a similar number of ‘falsehoods, half truths, and distortions’, as a result of creative use of language.
ruidh wrote:
“When next that TEC is faced with consent to a partnered gay bishop (and I believe that B033 says nothing about celibate gay candidates) we will have to weigh being true to ourselves and being true to our relationship with the Communion. It will not be an easy choice. It will be a painful one.”
I think that I would place ‘being true to our relationship with God’ above either of these options.
Wright got it essentially right. There are only two sources for a transcendent moral order available to people. One is scriptural and the other is the western tradition of natural law that starts essentially with Plato and Aristotle. Both of these are unanimous about the nature of sexuality and Wright’s explanation of them is correct. Together, they form an enormous obstacle to what the Episcopal Church has done. Anyone can claim to be on the cutting edge, out there with the Holy Ghost, getting the latest amendments to scripture or human biology. But if I had to bet on who is right, I’ll go with Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, all the Popes, N. T. Wright instead of the House of Deputies and the bishops down in Disneyland. dolgwan is right. You can bless anything you want to–that doesn’t mean God will bless it.
Reading this as someone from outside both the TEC and the Anglican traditions I find it very intriguing and perplexing. I do not know enough withiin this tradition to respond to comments related to specific church ecclesiology.
However, this rebuttal has highlighted some issues that I still wad in their mystery.
Many people have indicated what the rub is with the issue at hand. To some the crux of the matter is “Does God consider same-gender sex sinful?”. To others it is as simple a matter as “What does scripture teach regarding this subject?” For others it is about love and not harming the community at large. I am sure that there may be others that I have missed or others that have not been shared.
After reading these responses the question at hand for me, relates to epistimology. How does one know truth? How in the world can we really know what God believes regarding sexual preference? Well intended and bright theologians can argue their position scripturally. So, where does that leave us. It leaves me with this nagging epistimological question. Can two people living in the way of Christ see scripture differently on this particular issue? If so, what does one do with it? Why must it be reconciled? If not, then why even care about keeping communion with others who are not following Christ….This all seems foolish.
Communal epistimology must place each others interests over the other to hear the voice of the other. Are people from either viewpoint willing to suspend their perspective long enough to listen to the voice of the other? And if so, will they place the interest of the other person above their own interest. So, what happens when a community of people learning to follow in the way of Christ place others’ interests over their own?
What happens to a community where one side submits to the needs of the other but the other doesn’t? Can both parties really be living in the way of Jesus and not place the interest of the other ahead of their own needs?
It strikes me that what D025 intends will allow the PB to circumvent B033, which she obviously doesn’t respect. Calling down the ABC is not very Christian but that is the direction TEC is going. Scott, I hope your pension is secure because if you think the rush to the lifeboats was noticable it will become a flood.
Well done! A beautiful witness!
And yet, witnessing to the truth in Anglicanism has always been a fraught process, because Anglicanism is far from being a confessional entity. As long as there have been Anglicans, there has been disagreement; but there has also been the commitment to keep the Church inclusive of sometimes very diverse points of view. What we have today is a group of very vocal bishops, mostly of rather literalist Evangelical stripe (not the widest band in Anglicanism), who want to abrogate the spirit of the Anglican Settlement of our de facto foundress, Elizabeth I.
Where is the “big tent”? When did we abolish confessional diversity in Anglicanism? The theological issues behind disagreements on homosexuality in Anglicanism have very deep roots. In a modern context, they call us to a much better hermeneutic than taking seven or eight passages of Scripture, divorcing them from their context, and acting as if the New Testament dispensation never happened. I have no doubts about the piety and sincerity of those on the other side of the question, but I do have some reservations about the way they read Scripture.
I have looked at the Scriptural passages which allegedly make a blanket condemnation of same-sex acts and have found that in good conscience (and taking each one in its own context and in the context of the whole message of the Gospel), I cannot take them as saying what these other readers purport them to define. For one thing, the translations of some of them in commonly used English versions distort their original meaning and ignore their contexts.
That these understandings had become commonplace in some circles, and been given such inordinate prominence over other, overarching indications in Scripture is something that the Evangelicals will have to justify to me before I accept their readings.
If the four Gospels are the light in which we understand the rest of Scripture, why are they completely silent on an issue so important that it threatens to divide the Church?
I will continue to believe that God is a God of love and mercy, and not of judgment and retribution; I refuse to accept that God could be as small-minded and mean as the prejudices of mankind. For me, in the light of the Gospel as I see it, the blasphemy is making of God the idol of one’s own fears.
Perhaps it is to help us avoid this blasphemy that we are called in the Gospel to examine our own faults, and leave those of others to those who live with and struggle with them in order to find a way to live closer to God in the truth of our own hearts.
Brilliant – well done!
I agree (in general) with GJT’s assessment, which seems to be a common one; but I worry that this is “the long way around” the question at hand. It seems to me that it is not only not necessary to abandon scriptural literalness to the “fundamentalists” on this question, it is outright counterproductive to do so.
Todd’s question seems central to me: “Can two people living in the way of Christ see scripture differently on this particular issue….”
It might seem possible for two such persons to “agree to disagree.” Contrary to assertions by Wright and others, this is very far from a question of core doctrine in the Christian religion. Certainly there are absolutely no grounds AT ALL for the irresponsible (and outright false) assertion that TEC has “abandoned Christianity.”
As Jamie B points out (far more gently than would I), Patzerdog and others seem to simply be misinformed as to what scripture actually has to say on this subject.
For a Christian, interpreting scripture in the light of Christ’s message (and in light of the church’s core doctrines as defined by the only 7 councils that were ever truly ecumenical), there simply are NOT two ways to interpret scripture. There simply is NO condemnation of long-term, loving and monogamous homosexuality in scripture.
There ARE condemnations of homosexual rape (as there are of heterosexual rape); there ARE condemnations of reversion to pagan cults and practices that may include (but are not exclusively defined by) homosexual activities. But there is NOWHERE an outright condemnation of the situation we are discussing here: talking about the best way to minister to the legitimate pastoral needs of our fellow himan beings.
This sort of distortion and misinterpretation of Scripture IS one that has been frequent in the past. One might even say that it is a “traditional” misinterpretation. That “tradition does not make it any more correct than the previous and now completely discredited misinterpretations that were used to justify slavery, miscegenation, and a host of other political theories gone bad.
When one looks closely and carefully at what scripture actually contains, especially when one looks at scripture in light of the gospels, and particularly in light of the core message of our lord, there simply are NOT two ways for a genuine Christian to interpret scripture on this subject.
When there appears to be a direct conflict between a text proofing “interpretation” assering a “condemnation” on one hand and the clear commandments of our lord on theother hand, it is our lord’s message that must prevail. That is what it means to be Christian. When an interpretation of scripture creates an injustice that directly and immediately causes a person or a group of people an injury, as this one does, the proof of any condemnation MUST be incontrovertible and above the slightest possible dispute. In this case, this particular misinterpretation does not come even close to that standard.
Absent any condemnation (clear or even remotely interpretable in this case), the answer a Christian must give is the one that TEC has, in fact, given in both 033 and 025: we MUST address, openly discuss, and, if possible, meet the legitimate pastoral needs of even the least of these; this is true even when those legitimate pastoral needs may be manifest as a vocation to ordination or marriage. This is especially true in the case of making sure the sacraments are open to ALL of the baptised.
So, to answer Todd’s question: No, two people living in the way of Christ can not see scripture differently on this particular issue.” There may be legitimate differences of interpretation on other parts of scripture. But on this question there is only one way for a Christian to interpret our duty to our fellows (Christian, Samaritan, or otherwise). “Love the lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul…” and: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
In this context, Scott is absolutely correct to question Wright’s manipulation and falsification of both TEC’s statements AND his (presumed) manipulation and falsification of scripture.
Um… as I read over this it seems to me that some could misinterpret what I wrote above as casting doubt on Wright’s (or anyone elses for that matter) core credentials as a Christian.
Please understand that I am in absolutely no doubt that he (and most of those in the secessionist camp) adhere to the core doctrines of the church as expressed in the Gospels and the only 7 councils that are acceptable to the orthodox as ecumenical.
I do, however, think that he, in this instance particular, and the secessionists in general, have been sadly misinformed and signifigantly mislead by their emotions as to the true import of scripture, intent of TEC, and doctrinal signifigance of this issue. They, overall, are clearly Christians. Their interpretation of scripture has been distorted by their emotions into one that is not christian. In other words, they are just wrong in this particular instance.
This, of course, is a direct contrast to the habits of a number of the secessionists (like Kendal Harmon) who do not seem to hesitate to say that TEC has ceased to be Christian at all.
[...] debate seems to be causing a Web 2.0 fire. From the New York Times to The Globe and Mail and now to this dude who thinks he’s smarter the Bishop of Durham. This montrous debate is a sign of a much [...]
This is excellent. I would be interested to have Tom Wright read this and respond.
[...] and reaction across the Communion. Read a great rebuttal to the Times article of Bishop NT Wright here. Fuller comment on Mishkan [...]
I’m not, necessarily, smarter thank Wright, generally, just actually looking for truth in the plain text of scripture FOR MYSELF; I’m not taking someone else’s reading as true without studying the issue for myself. We all make mistakes. It’s abundantly clear to anyone who reads a decent translation of the scriptures for themselves that Wright has made a BIG error here. The Greek texts of the New Testament and Epistles, and particularly of Romans, is abundantly clear in not supporting Wright’s position.
Scott and others,
You continue to do what our African brothers and sisters, in particular, are driven crazy by. You use words as if they had a flexibility in their plain meaning so as to create an impression that you declare is true when it is demonstrably false. Once again, this is precisely what TEC has done in their breathtaking use of postmodern language in D025 and all Tom Wright did was call them and you on it using the Word of God as historically understood for milennia. The plain outcome intended by TEC is certainly just as Integrity has read it–that gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered persons who practice a form of sexuality proscribed in all of scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, will be ordained. That they are now in England and America and Canada is not an argument that can stand. We obviously ordain adulterers, thieves, child molestors, and gossips. No one justifies this as a qualification or a redressing of “rights.” Certainly there will be a discernment process as Scott points out and certainly not everyone who applies will be chosen, but if such unrepentant and declared unsinful behavior is not a barrier, why pass D025 at all? Simply because TEC says it does not want to separate from the Anglican Communion, and folks like Scott and others affirm that is true, the plain message to the Communion and to rejecting the ABC’s clear in-person pleas for backing away from this decison (only the latest request added to those from all corners of Anglicanism and its established bodiesin years past) was “we’re not listening to anyone but our own counsel. Everyone else is wrong and we’re right but we still want communion.” If that is not cynical in its plain meaning I don’t know what is. Somehow TEC has taken “honesty” about their sin to mean integrity, wholeness, when what is occurring is to call sin a “holy act” as Gene Robinson does and to call a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as heresy as Katherine Schori did in her opening speech. The big error my good friends is TEC saying to God and the world that nothing has changed. In some ways, that is true, but in an official, conciliar decision it is patently false and what has been sown will be reaped in a whirlwind. We all stand in need of grace, and I more than anyone, but God help us when we will not avail ourselves of grace, teach the opposite of truth, bar the door to men and women who need God’s grace by our untruths in teaching, and call it all holy. Thank God there are those in TEC who remain faithful and it is they who will sign the covenant while TEC continues to hope it will all go away. Since the Word of God stands forever, that will be a long time indeed.
Wright deconstructed your resolution. You desconstructed Wright’s deconstruction. You admire deconstruction? Episcopalianism deconstructs itself. Its efforts can be summarized in a single proper noun: Frank Lombard.
Your organization is meaningless.
Hey, SteveP. Why don’t you crawl back under the con evo rock that you came from?
@ Ray. I am sorry that you and others prefer to rely on your emotions rather than actually read scripture for yourselves. The plain text of scripture simply does not support your contentions. The plain text of our religious history as a faith does not support your claim of a tradition that is actually longer than the 1920s.
In this case, it is you and SOME African prelates who are demonstrably wrong, are acting directly counter to scripture and to the import of Christ’s commandments. It is you who are claiming something that is demonstrably false and twisting scripture without regard to truth.
The complete lack of logic in what you have written above is almost proof enough against your contentions. You claim that it is because you and others have claimed it is so.
Please set your emotional reaction against the truth aside and read the scriptures for yourself.
Dear Steve P.,
“Wright deconstructed your resolution. You desconstructed Wright’s deconstruction. You admire deconstruction? Episcopalianism deconstructs itself.”
I officially deconstruct your deconstruction of my deconstruction of Wright’s deconstruction of the Episcopal Church.
Peace,
Scott
The body of your entry here certainly proves your first sentence.
Really, John? I thought it certainly proves Fr. Scott’s second sentence.