GOOD NIGHT, JON BOY
Episcopalians are still bent about Ross Douthat’s New York Times column of the other day in which he suggested that the Episcopal Organization’s future is so dark, it’s gotta wear night-vision goggles. At TIME, Jon Meacham, good Episcopalian that he is, attempts a civilized response:
This week was no different, and in the New York Times on Sunday, Ross Douthat summarized the conservative view of my troubled church with a column headlined “Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?” It is not hard to figure out the conclusion Douthat arrives at in his column, which includes this pronouncement: “the leaders of the Episcopal Church and similar bodies often don’t seem to be offering anything you can’t get from a purely secular liberalism.”
But, says Meacham, at their last GenCon, Episcopalians just did what Episcopalians have always done.
The occasion for this round of Episcopal debate is the passage of an optional rite to bless same-sex unions. Dioceses (rather like states within the communion) can choose whether to allow priests to perform the rite. It that sense, the vote fits well within a religious tradition that was forged amid political and theological conflict over the nature of power in the 16th century. Anglicanism has always been about the attempt — sometimes successful, sometimes less so — to find a via media, or middle way, between stricter sacramentalism of Roman Catholicism and stricter scriptural literalism of other Protestant denominations. Anglicanism is driven in large measure by the same principle that Walter Bagehot identified as essential to the British constitution: the enduring effort to “muddle through.”
coughWOMENSORDINATIONcough. Since I run this site and, well, because I can, I’m going to slightly modify Richard John Neuhaus’ famous dictum. Where orthodoxy, conservatism, traditionalism, call it what you will, becomes optional, orthodoxy, conservatism, traditionalism, call it what you will, will eventually become sin.
There’s a slight but definite difference between a proscribed opinion, an opinion you may hold but your church does not, and an opinion that your church, explicitly or implicitly, considers to be an evil which must be fought against. If you want to be ordained as an Episcopal minister but you tell your bishop that you are opposed to women’s ordination, I don’t like your chances.
I see a similar movement with regards to Big Narcissism. I think the day is fast arriving when telling your Episcopal bishop that homosexual activity is a sin will kill your chances for ordination in the Episcopal Organization as quickly as telling your bishop that you oppose women’s ordination. And I also think Meacham is sensitive to Douthat’s charge that his “church” is nothing more than the Democratic Party at prayer.
Eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes. As I read it, his argument, shared by many, is that the church is essentially translating liberal views of sexuality into the language and forms of the faith. If the Bible speaks out against homosexuality, then a church that moves to embrace homosexuals must be acting not according to theological thinking but to political factors. Put another way, the Episcopal Church has taken the course it has taken on sexuality because it is politically fashionable to do so, not because there is a theological reason to open its arms wider.
But Douthat, argues Meacham, doesn’t realize a few things.
The problem with this argument is that it ignores a long tradition of evolving theological understanding and changing scriptural interpretation. Only the most unapologetic biblical fundamentalists, for instance, take every biblical injunction literally. If we all took all scripture at the same level of authority, then we would be more open to slavery, to the subjugation of women, to wider use of stoning. Jesus himself spoke out frequently against divorce in the strongest of terms. Yet we have — often gradually — chosen to read and interpret the Bible in light not of tradition but of reason and history.
There’s a lot there so let’s polish off the easy stuff first. We’d be “more open to slavery, to the subjugation of women, to wider use of stoning,” would we? As for the slavery part, only if Jon can show me where in the Bible anyone is commanded to own a slave. Because we are commanded many times not to spend our free time in the same way Gene Robinson often spends his.
As far as being down with “the subjugation of women” and a “wider use of stoning” is concerned, that might be true to someone who (1) doesn’t own a Bible, (2) has never actually read the New Testament and (3) doesn’t mind proof-texting in order to make a political point which is something I thought that only the Christian right did.
But this sentence intrigues me the most because I’m not at all sure that Meacham understands its implications. “The problem with this argument is that it ignores a long tradition of evolving theological understanding and changing scriptural interpretation.”
Essentially, it boils down to this. To Episcopalians like Meacham, God’s will is whatever man decides it is. So if “a long tradition of evolving theological understanding and changing scriptural interpretation” decides that polyamorous marriage is perfectly fine, it is perfectly fine and the words of God Incarnate have been superceded by “evolving theological understanding and changing scriptural interpretation.”
All of which basically means that Douthat’s charge has been proven. That Book means what it says. There are people who understand this, Jon, and, as excruciatingly difficult as it is for them, adjust their lives accordingly. Because they’re far more honest than you’re ever going to be. But Meacham has to enlist SCIENCE!! in his army.
Given that sexual orientation is innate and that we are all, in theological terms, children of God, to deny access to some sacraments based on sexuality is as wrong as denying access to some sacraments based on race or gender.
“Sexual orientation is innate?” According to who? If you accept the premise of a “sexual orientation,” which I don’t, and if that particular “sexual orientation” is “innate,” then so is every other “sexual orientation.” Sure you want to go there, Jon?
This week was no different, and in the New York Times on Sunday, Ross Douthat summarized the conservative view of my troubled church with a column headlined “Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?” It is not hard to figure out the conclusion Douthat arrives at in his column, which includes this pronouncement: “the leaders of the Episcopal Church and similar bodies often don’t seem to be offering anything you can’t get from a purely secular liberalism.”
But, says Meacham, at their last GenCon, Episcopalians just did what Episcopalians have always done.
The occasion for this round of Episcopal debate is the passage of an optional rite to bless same-sex unions. Dioceses (rather like states within the communion) can choose whether to allow priests to perform the rite. It that sense, the vote fits well within a religious tradition that was forged amid political and theological conflict over the nature of power in the 16th century. Anglicanism has always been about the attempt — sometimes successful, sometimes less so — to find a via media, or middle way, between stricter sacramentalism of Roman Catholicism and stricter scriptural literalism of other Protestant denominations. Anglicanism is driven in large measure by the same principle that Walter Bagehot identified as essential to the British constitution: the enduring effort to “muddle through.”
coughWOMENSORDINATIONcough. Since I run this site and, well, because I can, I’m going to slightly modify Richard John Neuhaus’ famous dictum. Where orthodoxy, conservatism, traditionalism, call it what you will, becomes optional, orthodoxy, conservatism, traditionalism, call it what you will, will eventually become sin.
There’s a slight but definite difference between a proscribed opinion, an opinion you may hold but your church does not, and an opinion that your church, explicitly or implicitly, considers to be an evil which must be fought against. If you want to be ordained as an Episcopal minister but you tell your bishop that you are opposed to women’s ordination, I don’t like your chances.
I see a similar movement with regards to Big Narcissism. I think the day is fast arriving when telling your Episcopal bishop that homosexual activity is a sin will kill your chances for ordination in the Episcopal Organization as quickly as telling your bishop that you oppose women’s ordination. And I also think Meacham is sensitive to Douthat’s charge that his “church” is nothing more than the Democratic Party at prayer.
Eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes. As I read it, his argument, shared by many, is that the church is essentially translating liberal views of sexuality into the language and forms of the faith. If the Bible speaks out against homosexuality, then a church that moves to embrace homosexuals must be acting not according to theological thinking but to political factors. Put another way, the Episcopal Church has taken the course it has taken on sexuality because it is politically fashionable to do so, not because there is a theological reason to open its arms wider.
But Douthat, argues Meacham, doesn’t realize a few things.
The problem with this argument is that it ignores a long tradition of evolving theological understanding and changing scriptural interpretation. Only the most unapologetic biblical fundamentalists, for instance, take every biblical injunction literally. If we all took all scripture at the same level of authority, then we would be more open to slavery, to the subjugation of women, to wider use of stoning. Jesus himself spoke out frequently against divorce in the strongest of terms. Yet we have — often gradually — chosen to read and interpret the Bible in light not of tradition but of reason and history.
There’s a lot there so let’s polish off the easy stuff first. We’d be “more open to slavery, to the subjugation of women, to wider use of stoning,” would we? As for the slavery part, only if Jon can show me where in the Bible anyone is commanded to own a slave. Because we are commanded many times not to spend our free time in the same way Gene Robinson often spends his.
As far as being down with “the subjugation of women” and a “wider use of stoning” is concerned, that might be true to someone who (1) doesn’t own a Bible, (2) has never actually read the New Testament and (3) doesn’t mind proof-texting in order to make a political point which is something I thought that only the Christian right did.
But this sentence intrigues me the most because I’m not at all sure that Meacham understands its implications. “The problem with this argument is that it ignores a long tradition of evolving theological understanding and changing scriptural interpretation.”
Essentially, it boils down to this. To Episcopalians like Meacham, God’s will is whatever man decides it is. So if “a long tradition of evolving theological understanding and changing scriptural interpretation” decides that polyamorous marriage is perfectly fine, it is perfectly fine and the words of God Incarnate have been superceded by “evolving theological understanding and changing scriptural interpretation.”
All of which basically means that Douthat’s charge has been proven. That Book means what it says. There are people who understand this, Jon, and, as excruciatingly difficult as it is for them, adjust their lives accordingly. Because they’re far more honest than you’re ever going to be. But Meacham has to enlist SCIENCE!! in his army.
Given that sexual orientation is innate and that we are all, in theological terms, children of God, to deny access to some sacraments based on sexuality is as wrong as denying access to some sacraments based on race or gender.
“Sexual orientation is innate?” According to who? If you accept the premise of a “sexual orientation,” which I don’t, and if that particular “sexual orientation” is “innate,” then so is every other “sexual orientation.” Sure you want to go there, Jon?
No comments:
Post a Comment