A Modest Proposal
I subscribe to the listserv of the House of Bishops/Deputies [HoBD], and I read every word of it. If you have asbestos underwear, you may want to subscribe to it, too. At least two years ago -- in response to a question from one of the so-called "conservatives," I posted this piece to the listserv. I’m proud to say this essay (also reproduced below) was published in Louie Crew's "Do Justice" series. Background to my essay is provided in Louie's italicized section below.
Sadly, my comments are as relevant now as they were two years ago.
In light of the hideous resolution B033, I would still like to pose this challenge to our Bishops, Deputies, and Standing Committees. Why are the gay people the only ones whose "manner of life" is believed to be ipso facto a challenge to the wider Church? Why -- oh why -- are we not scrutinizing the other, heterosexual people whose "manner of life" should pose a challenge to the Gospel of our Lord and Savior?
So far, nobody's been able or willing to answer that question for me. Maybe some of you will.
A Modest Proposal (with apologies to Jonathan Swift)
Background: One priest posted thoughts and questions on the House of Bishops & Deputies listserv on July 11, including the following excerpt:
I count myself among those who have been surprised at the reaction to ordaining Gene Robinson. I have not thought that the Episcopal Church has departed from the essential matters of faith set forth in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and further upheld in the Righter trial. But the fact is that the vast majority of the Anglican Communion thinks we have.
We can argue until we are purple, but that is what people think we have done and we have not changed their minds.
Hard Questions: 1) Do we acknowledge that we are in the distinct minority on this one, and while being clear that we support ordaining people who are of the same sex in faithful relationships and that we support blessing such relationships, yet we impose a moratorium on blessing same-sex relationships and ordaining people in same-sex relationships until there is a new consensus in the Anglican Communion, as the Windsor Report suggests?
The following response was offered by Lisa Fox (Grace Episcopal Church, Jefferson City, Mo.), who is not a delegate to General Convention.
Brothers & sisters, I was quite moved by the Dean’s probing, soul-searching question as to whether those of us who proudly supported Bishop Robinson's consecration should take a gentle, Christian step backward for the sake of preserving the Anglican Communion. My heart sang on that weekend morning when I heard of his selection by the diocese of New Hampshire, and my heart soared when I heard that GC03 had approved that consecration. But so too has my heart wept with the nasty, divisive language that has come from the minority in TEC and the (apparent?) majority of the Anglican Communion in the past almost-two years.
Because I take my baptismal vows seriously, and because I value the unity of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, I am tempted to say "yes" to [the Dean’s] proposal. But as I thought further about it, I came to the conclusion that gay/lesbian folks should not be the only ones to "suffer" if we are to cave in to the biblical literalists. It makes no sense to be literal only about their reading of "sodomy" and "homosexuality." Therefore -- speaking as one who has no power in the decisions of GC06 -- I would suggest that his proposal be extended further.
To me, the decisions of GC03 were Spirit-filled and courageous as Jesus was courageous. I want our church to choose leaders, clergy, and bishops based on the fruits of the Spirit -- not on the gender of their mate. It pains me deeply to think my church might refuse to ordain/consecrate Spirit-filled, "fruitful" people who happen to be gay or lesbian. But … I might be willing to accept that "conservative" stance if "the other side" would agree to be equally literal on other parts of Scripture, such as these:
§ We will ordain no one who has divorced and remarried, as they are adulterers.
§ We will ordain no one who gossips or commits slander. We will consecrate no man whose wife commits these sins, either, in keeping with I Timothy
§ We will ordain no one who is fat, as they are gluttons. Yes, I know there's conflicting medical research on whether that's genetic or a result of personal choice ... but there's the same debate about homosexual orientation, and "the conservative side" discounts those arguments by saying the gay person should just "exercise more discipline" or "offer it up to Jesus." I propose that they apply the same stricture regarding fat people.
§ We will ordain no one who increases the sufferings of the poor. I think that would include those who benefit from high interest rates on loans, as they are obviously usurers. I suppose that would include those among us who hold stock in the major credit-card companies that charge such usurious interest rates. It should probably also include legislators or voters who act to reduce free lunches for school children, and those who reduce our societal support for the poor. Enforcing this requirement strictly could get pretty complicated, but I expect the literalists could come up with a system for ruling out these sinners.
§ We will ordain no one who has sued another Christian in a civil court. Sadly, I suspect there are many Christians who have sued other Christians in court, in clear contravention of St. Paul's teachings.
No matter how spiritual a postulant or candidate seems to be, we will not ordain/consecrate that person if he or she violates those clear teachings of Scripture, as well as the perceived teachings against homosexuality. Could we all agree to that?
And perhaps we should consider a further step as long as we're cleaning house: Inhibit every deacon, priest, and bishop who is gay. And to ensure the kind of purity the “conservatives” seem to want, perhaps we should also remove all gay Sunday School teachers, altar guild members, acolytes, Eucharistic Ministers, vergers, thurifers, Eucharistic Visitors, organists, and choir members who are gay. After all, these people are exercising the “ministry of the baptized” which is not really so different (except in degree) from the ministry of the ordained.
Then we should do the same for all the "straight" deacons, priests, and bishops who are known to be guilty of sins such as those I have listed here. And clean-house of all the “straight” Sunday School teachers, altar guild members, acolytes, Eucharistic Ministers, vergers, thurifers, Eucharistic Visitors, organists, and choir members who are also living in clear contravention of the Biblical dictates such as I have listed here.
The next logical step, of course, would be for our priests and bishops to be much more conscientious about whom they allow to receive communion – in keeping with these same guidelines. After all, we are not supposed to communicate “notorious sinners,” are we?
Admittedly, this would leave us with a grossly under-staffed church and a very few people at the altar rail at the Eucharist. But would it not be worth it, in order to achieve the kind of Purity that the conservatives in TEC and the Global South seem to desire?
Do you think these measures would placate the conservatives in TEC and the Global South? Or will we need to proceed to stonings to make them truly happy?
In a plan like this, EVERYONE would lose something -- would lose a lot, in fact -- in the compromise.
Modestly proposed,
Lisa
Sadly, my comments are as relevant now as they were two years ago.
In light of the hideous resolution B033, I would still like to pose this challenge to our Bishops, Deputies, and Standing Committees. Why are the gay people the only ones whose "manner of life" is believed to be ipso facto a challenge to the wider Church? Why -- oh why -- are we not scrutinizing the other, heterosexual people whose "manner of life" should pose a challenge to the Gospel of our Lord and Savior?
So far, nobody's been able or willing to answer that question for me. Maybe some of you will.
A Modest Proposal (with apologies to Jonathan Swift)
Background: One priest posted thoughts and questions on the House of Bishops & Deputies listserv on July 11, including the following excerpt:
I count myself among those who have been surprised at the reaction to ordaining Gene Robinson. I have not thought that the Episcopal Church has departed from the essential matters of faith set forth in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and further upheld in the Righter trial. But the fact is that the vast majority of the Anglican Communion thinks we have.
We can argue until we are purple, but that is what people think we have done and we have not changed their minds.
Hard Questions: 1) Do we acknowledge that we are in the distinct minority on this one, and while being clear that we support ordaining people who are of the same sex in faithful relationships and that we support blessing such relationships, yet we impose a moratorium on blessing same-sex relationships and ordaining people in same-sex relationships until there is a new consensus in the Anglican Communion, as the Windsor Report suggests?
The following response was offered by Lisa Fox (Grace Episcopal Church, Jefferson City, Mo.), who is not a delegate to General Convention.
Brothers & sisters, I was quite moved by the Dean’s probing, soul-searching question as to whether those of us who proudly supported Bishop Robinson's consecration should take a gentle, Christian step backward for the sake of preserving the Anglican Communion. My heart sang on that weekend morning when I heard of his selection by the diocese of New Hampshire, and my heart soared when I heard that GC03 had approved that consecration. But so too has my heart wept with the nasty, divisive language that has come from the minority in TEC and the (apparent?) majority of the Anglican Communion in the past almost-two years.
Because I take my baptismal vows seriously, and because I value the unity of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, I am tempted to say "yes" to [the Dean’s] proposal. But as I thought further about it, I came to the conclusion that gay/lesbian folks should not be the only ones to "suffer" if we are to cave in to the biblical literalists. It makes no sense to be literal only about their reading of "sodomy" and "homosexuality." Therefore -- speaking as one who has no power in the decisions of GC06 -- I would suggest that his proposal be extended further.
To me, the decisions of GC03 were Spirit-filled and courageous as Jesus was courageous. I want our church to choose leaders, clergy, and bishops based on the fruits of the Spirit -- not on the gender of their mate. It pains me deeply to think my church might refuse to ordain/consecrate Spirit-filled, "fruitful" people who happen to be gay or lesbian. But … I might be willing to accept that "conservative" stance if "the other side" would agree to be equally literal on other parts of Scripture, such as these:
§ We will ordain no one who has divorced and remarried, as they are adulterers.
§ We will ordain no one who gossips or commits slander. We will consecrate no man whose wife commits these sins, either, in keeping with I Timothy
§ We will ordain no one who is fat, as they are gluttons. Yes, I know there's conflicting medical research on whether that's genetic or a result of personal choice ... but there's the same debate about homosexual orientation, and "the conservative side" discounts those arguments by saying the gay person should just "exercise more discipline" or "offer it up to Jesus." I propose that they apply the same stricture regarding fat people.
§ We will ordain no one who increases the sufferings of the poor. I think that would include those who benefit from high interest rates on loans, as they are obviously usurers. I suppose that would include those among us who hold stock in the major credit-card companies that charge such usurious interest rates. It should probably also include legislators or voters who act to reduce free lunches for school children, and those who reduce our societal support for the poor. Enforcing this requirement strictly could get pretty complicated, but I expect the literalists could come up with a system for ruling out these sinners.
§ We will ordain no one who has sued another Christian in a civil court. Sadly, I suspect there are many Christians who have sued other Christians in court, in clear contravention of St. Paul's teachings.
No matter how spiritual a postulant or candidate seems to be, we will not ordain/consecrate that person if he or she violates those clear teachings of Scripture, as well as the perceived teachings against homosexuality. Could we all agree to that?
And perhaps we should consider a further step as long as we're cleaning house: Inhibit every deacon, priest, and bishop who is gay. And to ensure the kind of purity the “conservatives” seem to want, perhaps we should also remove all gay Sunday School teachers, altar guild members, acolytes, Eucharistic Ministers, vergers, thurifers, Eucharistic Visitors, organists, and choir members who are gay. After all, these people are exercising the “ministry of the baptized” which is not really so different (except in degree) from the ministry of the ordained.
Then we should do the same for all the "straight" deacons, priests, and bishops who are known to be guilty of sins such as those I have listed here. And clean-house of all the “straight” Sunday School teachers, altar guild members, acolytes, Eucharistic Ministers, vergers, thurifers, Eucharistic Visitors, organists, and choir members who are also living in clear contravention of the Biblical dictates such as I have listed here.
The next logical step, of course, would be for our priests and bishops to be much more conscientious about whom they allow to receive communion – in keeping with these same guidelines. After all, we are not supposed to communicate “notorious sinners,” are we?
Admittedly, this would leave us with a grossly under-staffed church and a very few people at the altar rail at the Eucharist. But would it not be worth it, in order to achieve the kind of Purity that the conservatives in TEC and the Global South seem to desire?
Do you think these measures would placate the conservatives in TEC and the Global South? Or will we need to proceed to stonings to make them truly happy?
In a plan like this, EVERYONE would lose something -- would lose a lot, in fact -- in the compromise.
Modestly proposed,
Lisa
posted by Lisa Fox at 7/30/2006 02:43:00 AM
2 Comments:
We will ordain no one who has divorced and remarried, as they are adulterers.
Fine. This is in fact the rule in all of Eastern Orthodoxy and much of the Anglican Communion, and was the rule in ECUSA until about 50 years ago. Go for it.
We will ordain no one who increases the sufferings of the poor.
The difficulty with this is determining whose policies actually increase the sufferings of the poor. There are a number of well-supported arguments that by and large the policies of the Left do much more long-term damage to the poor than anything the Right has ever proposed.
As to civil courts, gluttony, and slander, yes, indeed, we should refuse to ordain anyone who teaches that these activities are not sinful, just as we would refuse to ordain unrepentant adulterers, homosexuals, misers, thieves, and so on. The problem here is not sin -- as has been repeated over and over to those of your persuasion -- the problem is false teaching and refusal to acknowledge the sinful character of the activity.
Brava.
Post a Comment
<< Home