ON THE OTHER HAND…

From Christopher Johnson at the Midwest Conservative Journal:


Saturday, February 14th, 2009

When I expressed pessimism about the results of the recent Alexandria Primates Meeting and what it might mean for the future of Christian Anglicanism, I may have spoken WAY too soon. Because if this execrably bad Randall Balmer article is any indication, ACNA has rattled the Episcopal Organization. Big time:

"These words came to mind when I read about the unfortunate decision of conservative bishops to break with the Episcopal Church and form their own group, which they are calling the “Anglican Church in North America.” The actions of the schismatics are eerily reminiscent of the decision by antebellum Southerners to break with their Northern coreligionists over the issue of slavery."

Aw, yew bet. Cornbread (without sugar, yew Yankee sumbitches) and catfish fer dinner t’night.

Don’t know if anyone’s officially claimed this so I’m going to announce Johnson’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law. When you invoke the Confederate States of America straight out of the box, you have lost the argument and you know you have lost the argument.

"The formation of this “Anglican Church in North America,” as widely noted, marks the first time in the history of the Anglican Communion that a group has sought to define itself in terms of theological orientation rather than geography. In so doing, the conservatives are playing fast and loose with both tradition and the canons – something that the conservatives, paradoxically, have faulted the Episcopal Church for doing in the elevation of Gene Robinson to be bishop of New Hampshire in 2003."

Mrs. Schori’s rape of the canons is too well-documented to repeat here; check out the Anglican Curmudgeon if you’re interested in following that up. As for the invocation of “tradition,” that’s beginning to get REALLY boring coming from an Anglican.

"The search for high ground on the part of the conservative schismatics, however, is rather more complicated. Their principal grievance appears to be the elevation of Robinson, an openly gay man, as bishop — and I have to believe that the adverb “openly” is pretty central to this discussion."

Pretty much. Thinking that something that Scripture calls a sin really isn’t is kind of why we’re having this discussion, Randy.

"But on what basis do they make their objection? On procedure? That’s a tough sell for a movement willing to violate ecclesiastical procedures in setting up their alternative province."

I REALLY don’t want to listen ever again to anyone complaining about the Roman Catholics considering themselves to be the One True Church.TM Seriously. You Romanists have got nothing on liberal Anglicans. Nothing at all.

"Luther based his Reformation on Scripture. Here, once again, the schismatics fall short. Jesus himself said nothing whatsoever about homosexuality, although he did affirm the religious laws set out in the book of Leviticus. But if that is the redoubt for the conservatives, they would be obliged to observe and enforce the other Levitical proscriptions as well – beginning, I suppose, with the fabric content of the purple shirts they’re wearing! One of the Levitical proscriptions warns against wearing garments of mixed fabric."

Shellfish. Should have seen that one coming. So much for having Oysters Rockefeller for dinner.

Randy? Says at the end of your article that you’re the rector of the Episcopal Organization outlet in Washington, Connecticut. That being the case, it seems a trifle odd that you don’t seem to be familiar with Acts 15. So I’ll help you out. Here, as journalists say, is the nut graf:

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from SEXUAL IMMORALITY. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

You’re welcome, Randy.

If the conservatives truly wanted to “prooftext” their case against Gene Robinson, they should quote Titus 1:6, where St. Paul mandated that church leaders should be “the husband of one wife.” Gene Robinson, a divorced man, presumably would not qualify (nor would some other bishops). Jesus, after all, said nothing explicit about homosexuality; he did, however, have something to say about divorce — and none of it good.

Randy? Bail out now. Please. Because you’re making of a jackass of yourself. Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality? Jesus also didn’t say anything about racism, sexism or “homophobia.” But Our Savior did say that “sexual immorality” defiled a person.

You’re making it WAY too easy, Randy.