from Midwest Conservative Journal
It must be nice to be a recognized Anglican voice as opposed to being some lame-ass Anglican blogger like the one you’re reading right now. The Guardian has never given me any column space but Jim Naughton gets published there all the time. Here, John Chane’s former valet attempts to take on his bête noire:
If the synod allows the Archbishop of Canterbury to further compromise the authority of a bishop over his or her diocese in order to appease opponents of opening the episcopacy to women, I suspect the Church of England will muddle along as it always has.
Muddling along. It’s what Anglicans do.
A church that can ignore the fact that it has gay bishops ordaining gay priests who live with gay partners, while its leaders enforce various sanctions on churches for having gay bishops who ordain gay priests with gay partners, can allow sexists to dictate the terms on which it moves toward gender equity without being undone by cognitive dissonance.
In much the same way that Episcopalians decide for themselves what sins Jesus died for while still claiming to be followers of Christ. But do go on.
Similarly, if the synod should acquiesce in the House of Bishops’ desire to embrace the Anglican Covenant, which would significantly diminish the ability of lay people to influence the Communion and effectively elevate homophobia to near creedal status, I imagine that many in the English Church–and other churches for that matter–will shrug their shoulders and carry on, living their lives the best way that they know how.
Bitchin’ straw man you’ve set up there, Jim. Decide in advance that anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot and go from there.
Kind of makes me wonder why you insist on sticking around a Christian tradition you obviously despise. Just start calling Kate “Archbishop,” crank up the Episcopal Communion and be done with it.
They might, perhaps, be embarrassed by the bishops’ attempt to re-establish an empire administered from a palace in London so long after the folly of such an enterprise was made manifest, but the average church-goer has learned to ignore church politics as a matter of self-preservation.
The Lambeth connection hasn’t bothered you up to now, has it, big smacker? Once again. If the idea upsets you, you know where the door is.
The consequences of Rowan Williams’ campaign to appease his enemies will be felt primarily by Williams himself, and by others charged with speaking on behalf of the Church.
I have a confession to make. Sentences like that one sometimes make me question the justice of God.
I mean, here I am, doing the best I can to get at the truth and I live in a one-bedroom apartment and basically exist from paycheck to paycheck. Jim Naughton, on the other hand, was once paid a lot of money for a lot of years by the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, gets published in the Guardian all the time and can write something as bone-crushingly stupid as that sentence.
Jim? See if you can wrap your mind around this. Roman Catholics regularly comment here. Several of them have expressed a desire for me to become a Roman Catholic but so far, their reasoning has not persuaded me of the necessity of such an action.
Does that mean that they’re wrong and I’m right? Of course not. All it means is that I am not persuaded right now; I may, at some point in the future, see something that I don’t currently see. “But this,” says Shakespeare, “lies all within the will of God.”
And that’s the difference between Rowan Williams and that bobble-head doll that currently heads your pseudo-spiritual organization, Jim. Dr. Williams is a liberal but Dr. Williams is that rarest of liberals.
He is someone who (1) believes that the conservative position is an intellectually-serious one that is not driven by bigotry and (2) is open to the possibility that he just might be wrong. That’s why you’re having such a hard time with him these days, isn’t it, Jim?
They will find that while the faithful at home may find ways to accommodate themselves to legislation they oppose, the wider public will be less willing to take moral instruction from a church that embraces double standards in its treatment of women and makes common cause with African prelates who do not believe that the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights should pertain to gay people.
Got any documentation for that charge, Jim? Thought not.
It isn’t clear that Williams or other Church leaders understand how thoroughly this undermines their credibility nationally and internationally, or how wide a gulf it opens between themselves and the English public.
Jim? What parts of this, this and this don’t you understand?
It isn’t evident that they grasp the impossibility of speaking truth to power when one has so clearly capitulated to the power one’s self.
Those of you who know me or who have met me need to understand something. If you ever use the phrase “speaking truth to power” in my presence, there’s a pretty decent chance that I will physically strike you in some fashion.
Jim? Naughts? Buddy? Our responsibility as Christians is NOT speaking truth to power. It is speaking truth.
PERIOD!!
Is “power” doing something it ought not be doing? Speak truth to it. Is that “poor” person over there slapping his wife/girlfriend around or spending his limited resources on cell phones, lottery tickets or booze? Speak truth to him too.
But that’s no fun. Let’s get a little rabid paranoia in.
In the struggle over female bishops and same-sex relationships, Williams and the bishops who are loyal to him have cast their lot not simply with high profile African church leaders, but with the reactionary American culture warriors who finance their activities.
And here we go.
This latter group is composed of men whose politics Williams purports to abhor. Yet within the Anglican Communion, the former self-described “hairy lefty” makes common cause with the Institute for Religion and Democracy, an organization founded to oppose the spread of liberation theology and give religious cover to Ronald Reagan’s proxy wars in Central America.
I’ve asked this before and have never gotten a satisfactory answer but I’m nothing if not persistent. With the exception of pop stars, actors and athletes, stupid people do not have a lot of money. So why would rich people pony up a lot of scratch to do to the Episcopal Organization what the Episcopal Organization has been doing to itself for free for the last few decades?
The scholar who tours the world lecturing on interfaith understanding is an ally in Communion politics with virulent anti-Islamic firebrands affiliated with the North American branch of the Church of Nigeria.
“Virulent anti-Islamic firebrands.” You don’t get out much, do you, Jim? To people like you, “oppression” is having to wait more than five minutes at Starbucks for your veinte half-caf Caramel Macchiato.
Ever lived in a place where the Mohammadans in the next town over might decide to, oh what’s the term I’m looking for, hack your family to death with machetes for reasons that make sense only to them?
Jim, I’d like to think that if someone of Mohammed’s religion murdered my family in such a gruesome way, I’d become a “virulent anti-Islamic firebrand” too. I wouldn’t have a living soul if I didn’t.
The prophet of the sustainable economy cooperates with men who deny that human activity contributes to climate change to deny gays, lesbians and women their full Christian dignity.
I’m guessing something got edited out there. But it always gets back around to that, doesn’t it, Jim? That’s the one and only measure of Episcopal morality these days. As long as you’re right on The Issue, everything else is optional.
Hypocrite.
No comments:
Post a Comment