Okay. I'll Take the Chance
Finally saw this posted on a blog. I hated to be the first one.

Sean at Pundit Ex Machina posted it last week. I received it in an email from a friend as well. More after the quote: Warning- someone may be offended by the following....

"The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that the church's founder, Henry VIII and his wife Catherine of Aragon, his wife Anne Boleyn, his wife Jane Seymour, his wife Anne of Cleves, his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriage."

I gather that this was originally written in an OpEd piece in the L.A. Times by Bishop Robinson. I thought it hit the issue from a different perspective that I had not seen anywhere else.

Now I have to admit that I used to get a big kick out of harrassing an Episcopalian priest frind of mine on this very issue long ago (20 years). I would over-simplify the issue and nag him about the traditions that started the Anglican Church alluded to in the quote above. He would always go into a "Yes, but you don't understand the whole issue." Well, yes, I did, but the issue was not religious or spiritual, it was political and personal. Like so many other decisions that churches have made over the millenia, there are often far more than the "pure" motives involved in the final outcomes. John Hus lost his battle with the Church because he was in the wrong political place at the wrong time... Martin Luther had more political clout behind him. And, well, you can't have much more clout than a King who wants to get divorced.

What I hope can be seen by the quote is that no one of us, no- not a single one of us on either side of the issue of the election of Bishop Robinson- can claim to be completely pure. At least from the historic point of view. Jesus was much clearer in his teaching about divorce than he was about homosexuality. Yet the Anglican Church came out of that breach of scriptural interpretation. That doesn't mean that those opposed to the consecration are wrong. They have a number of things on their side. But they also have said and done things that their own history belies. (And vice-versa as well.)

As an outsider, of course, I am well aware that my own tribe has its own problems with maintaining the integrity of our history - or even overcoming the problems of our history. One of these days we will have to face the same issue as the Anglican/ECUSA controversy. I want to remember when that time comes that we all are sinners, and we all have lots of reasons why none of us should be elected bishop (or anything else.) None of us is worthy. We are all culturally bound individuals seeking to go deep into the heart of God and God's Word as it applies today. Yes, Scripture seems to be crystal clear about this issue. But it also seems to be crystal clear about a lot of things we selectively ignore.

Yet, there is also an ethic and ethos to scripture that should not be denied, regardless of past transgressions. In a comment to my post on this on Saturday, it was pointed out that just because Jesus didn't spend a lot of time on this issue and sexual issues in general, doesn't mean that we should ignore what the commenter said is one of the biggest issues of our day. "Sexual indulgence leads to destruction." I agree. At the heart of the issue is always self-indulgence whether it be sexual or otherwise. And Jesus is very clear that it does lead to destruction.

Our goal then should be to find the Biblically-based ethic that addresses the issue. It is not about whether Gene Robinson divorced his wife to have a male-partner. It is not about whether Gene Robinson is gay, celibate or whatever. It is about the "sexualization" of society and its overwhelming presence as a yardstick for which side of the religious or spiritual fence you are on. The deeper issue is that we are allowing the sexual issues to define us and our faith-positions and political agenda when it should be our faith position that defines the sexual and political.

I have to admit also that I have absolutely no idea how all this will work itself out. I am saddened by the rhetoric, name-calling and anger. I am saddened by finger-pointing and human-made divisions in our communities. I am afraid for the ability of the church to move beyond culture to the basic calling we have- to introduce people to our Savior, Jesus Christ.

So I keep praying. That's about all I can do at this point. I realize that to the activist side of me that is not enough. I should take an active part. I should be on the ramparts fighting. But I can't do that. At least not on this issue. But as I pray I listen and read and look for the path through the fight. For me, at this point, it is to simply follow my Lord and go and make disciples.

P.S. I realize that there is more rambling than systematic thinking in this post. I think things through by writing- and rambling. One of the neat things about a blog is that I can ramble, throw it out for you to read and for you to give me feedback. Above all else on this blog, I want to at least wander through and around the issues, if not to a final answer in how, what, when, or where. The why is always clear- for the Glory of God.