|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
Fleming Rutledge is a preacher and teacher known throughout the mainline Protestant denominations of the US, Canada and parts of the UK. She is the author of seven books and has received a grant from the Louisville Foundation to complete a book about the meaning of the Crucifixion.
One of the first women to be ordained to the priesthood of the Episcopal Church, she served for fourteen years on the clergy staff at Grace Church on Lower Broadway at Tenth Street, New York City. Fleming and her husband celebrate their 50th anniversary in 2009 and have two daughters and two grandchildren. She is a native of Franklin, Virginia.
|
Ruminations: The vote at General Convention 2009Thursday, July 16, 2009The vote at General Convention 2009It is hard to know what to think about the state of the Anglican Communion after the actions of General Convention. As one who, at GC in 1976, observed at close range--sometimes sympathetically--the distress of those in the Episcopal Church who opposed the ordination of women, I think I can make two comments: the trauma of that time was less pervasive and less grievous than it is now; and the debate was more scriptural and more theological than the debate about the current issue has been. I could be wrong about this, but that is certainly my impression. The depth of the biblical and theological discussion was considerable in 1976. The essential appeal was made on the basis of real scriptural evidence. The foundations did not seem to be shaking then as they are now.I suppose some will say the decisions of 1976 were precursors of what is happening now, but on balance there was a great deal of scriptural support for women's ordination (which had the effect of counterbalancing the passages that seemed negative). There was much less talk of civil rights and cultural shifts than there is in 2009. A significant number of ordained women, then as now, could be counted among those who subscribed to the Nicene faith and could be counted on as colleagues in more evangelical circles. It is different now. The liberal/revisionist (hate these words!) sweep is almost total. I wrote a Rumination a few weeks ago that fits the picture we now face: http://www.generousorthodoxy.org/ruminations/2009/05/modest-proposal.htm I am myself of two minds about same-gender marriage, ordination, and the rest of the issues clustered around sexual identity and styles of life. I remain open to being convinced, but the arguments all seem to rely upon secular, cultural factors and a blurry "Jesus loves everybody" theology; he does indeed love everyone, as his life demonstrated, but there is more rigor in his love than we are admitting today. The high frequency of divorce, and its almost casual acceptance by those who choose bishops, rectors, and ordinands, seems to me a pressing issue. Not so very long ago, a once-divorced bishop would have been unthinkable, let alone a twice-divorced one. Many clergy families include unmarried couples living together. Why are we not giving the nature of marriage more attention? and why is there not more support for traditional marriage? (In any case, the complaint I have about Bishop Robinson is that he deliberately and consciously makes public statements to the effect that he does not believe the Christian Scriptures to be uniquely authoritative, and does not claim a unique role for Jesus Christ. His remarks at the time of the Obama inauguaration made that quite clear.) The Anglican Communion has been my life. I have always been so proud to be an Anglican abroad. However, it was the Book of Common Prayer that held us together. Now, there is no book of common prayer. Wherever one goes, it is a roll of the dice as to what sort of liturgy there will be, and what sort of theology or anti-theology one will find at services. What is there to hold us together now? One gets the impression that the ruling elders would be glad if all of the evangelicals left for good. There are so few places left for us to stand in The Episcopal Church. Do the ruling classes (I use that term advisedly) even care? They aren't reading this blog, that's for sure.
Permanent Link for this Post: http://www.generousorthodoxy.org/ruminations/2009/07/vote-at-general-convention-2009.htm |
|
|
21 Comments:
Dear Fleming,
I appreciated your rumination on this very much ... indeed even as a gay man in the Episcopal Church, I am a bit disappointed in the fact that the debate over our inclusion in the church is based on civil society arguments rather than the very foundations of the church. It seems that inclusion comes at the expense of scriptural authority, due deference to tradition and our commitment to unity.
Peace to You
Ian Chamberlin
"... It seems that inclusion comes at the expense of scriptural authority, due deference to tradition and our commitment to unity."
Eventually TEC's conception of inclusion will also come at the expense of its exclusion from the world-wide Anglican Communion.
Dear Fleming,
Thank you for putting into words what many of us are thinking. Having been an Episcopalian/Anglican all my life I am saddened by the way we have moved to a social justice organization rather than maintained our theological under girding or our faith. What does the majority (and I still maintain it is a majority) in the pew do now?
Dear Fleming,
Scot McKnight in the "Blue Parakeet" makes his case for the ordination of woman by demonstrating from Scripture how the Holy Spirit used many women for His purposes, and that Paul's statements that women should be silent in church and should not be teach men was a statement relevent to a very specific situtation in his day. McKnight makes the case convincingly that those texts should not be normative for our day. The exceptional statement should be subject to the primary statements and while noted, never the basis for a rule. The study of Scripture should include the identification of the two statement types.
(It seems sad to me that McKnight is still providing evidence for a subject we should have been able to put to rest 30 years ago)
Reading Scripture caused us to believe in a flat earth with a three tiered universe where the earth was held up on pillars. We had to learn that Scripture was not intended to give a sophistocated and comprehensive view of science, but for many, (and I write metaphorically) the earth continues to be flat and Heaven is still "up there."
The problem in the Anglican community (and in many others) is that there has been insufficient study of Scripture on the subject of homosexuality. For many, there is no need for further study; they know all they need to know. For others, such a study can have only one outcome: confirmation of what they have always believed. This is not conducive for growth.
Are we sure we are not making our case for exclusion and/or condemnation based on situation specific statements similarly to the example above?
Exceptional statements respond to specific situations and are thereby disqualified from prescribing the normative. At least in scripture, the minority must submit to the majority; the less clear to the clear.
In one instance, Paul appears to have invented a word unknown in any ancient Greek literature, arsenokoital. Are we prepared to condemn a whole group of people on the basis of it?
The greater difficulty with homosexuality as compared to the ordination of women, is that Scripture does not appear to have 'big picture' statements; only what may be exceptional statements for specific situations. For instance, take the "clobber" text of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Ezekiel 18 explains that the story of Sodom was not about sex. Rape is not about sex. Rape is about humiliation and violence. The story of the destruction of Sodom was never meant to speak about the modern construct of sexual orientation, but it is still used to inflict pain on gays and lesbians.
In Romans 1:24,26, Paul appears to be saying that homosexality is God's punishment for being an idolator. Surely his statement must be situation specific. Surely science would not support such a view. Surely this text needs a great deal more prayer and study to discover its integrity.
There are surprisingly few statements in Scripture about homosexuality. Surely we can be unafraid to weigh them. Surely the truth can afford to be examined very closely? Surely we can do this for the sake of our gay and lesbian fellow-Christians and finally put this subject to rest.
I have speant my whole life as a gay man and I have struggled for years to trust that God does not condemn me for my orientation. As a committed Christian, I have had no choice but to study the Scriptural testimony wherever it might lead.
Is it too much to ask that in this time of Anglican crisis that the time for this critical subject may have come at last?
Andrew Dykstra - Toronto - Canada
@ Andrew Dykstra:
You are partially correct about Sodom. Ezekiel Chapter 16 does point out that Sodom's sins include greed and pride, and gluttony. However, the Epistle of Jude does also put out that fornication (v.7) was among them.
I would be grateful to learn of your advice as to joining a parish of the Anglican Church in North America, and whether that body should become a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, particularly to avoid paying any money to a denomination that condones homosexual behavior.
Dear Mr. Duggan,
A very poor woman was witnessed by Jesus and His disciples as she gave a coin to the temple. It was a coin of very small denomination, but Jesus, who knew her heart, said she had given much more than the well-off because it was all she had.
This happened at a time when the temple was a very corrupt place. In the temple courtyard, men were bilking the poor with corrupt exchange rates when pilgrims had to exchange foreign currency for temple shekels.
Jesus did not reprimand the woman for contributing all she had to a corrupt system. Her gift was accepted as an act of faith.
I am sure that contributing to the Anglican church would not draw God's condemnation. It remains an act of faith as it did for the widow and her small coin.
The more troubling part of your question appears to convey the idea "I can't afford to be seen with these people."
I am one of those people with whom you feel you cannot be seen.
Homosexuality is not a behaviour; it is an orientation. You might just as easily reject me for the color of my skin or for being left-handed.
Please be aware that you likely know someone who is gay. They may be family. Knowing how you feel about them, though, I am sure they are keeping this to themselves.
Please understand that the church is God's house; it is not ours. It is not up to us to say who may attend. It is not our table, it is the Lord's table.
We may not say that we are good enough to come to God's house. It is not our merit but our need which qualifies us.
Andrew Dykstra - Toronto - Canada
It is indeed ironic that Mr. Dykstra equates 1st Century of the Common Era kleptocracy with 21st Century of the Common Era pederasty. The question I posed and which he did not answer is whether I as a believing Christian (and sinner) am entitled to vote with my dollars against an ecclestiastical hierarchy that celebrates perversion.
It is indeed ironic that Mr. Dykstra equates 1st Century of the Common Era kleptocracy with 21st Century of the Common Era pederasty. The question I posed and which he did not answer is whether I as a believing Christian (and sinner) am entitled to vote with my dollars against an ecclestiastical hierarchy that celebrates perversion.
I had not intended to post again.
Each must decide for himself whether he will study this issue or be content with what he already knows.
I agree with you, Fleming, that "Jesus loves everybody", while a true statement, does not address the issue satisfactorily.
I would rather "know nothing but Christ and Him crucified..", but as committed Christians, we are responsible to know "Is the homosexual my neighbor?", and it seems that for Anglicans at least, this subject is not about to go away.
Are we prepared to do the heavy lifting? We must take note of two thousand years of tradition, but we cannot be bound by it. If Luther had decided to be bound by 1500 years of traditon, there would have been no Reformation.
If we study any subject, we will find God's truth may be absolute, but our understanding will always be tentative.
God's Spirit will speak to us through the witness of others and we must weigh what truly is from God.
Here are a three useful resources that are easily obtainable from Amazon.com:
Daniel Helminiak's "What The Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" is a landmark book that deserves our attention in this critical moment--even if it only convinces us the subject is not as cut-and-dried as we thought.
"Those Seven References" By John F. Dwyer looks promising, though it is still on my to-read list.
"For The Bible Tells Me So", is a DVD which focuses (respectfully) on the experience of committed Christians--the parents of lesbians and gays. This DVD is not be missed.(Watch the trailer which is just below the displayed DVD on Amazon's site.
http://www.someone-to-talk-to.net
is a website by a thoughtful straight woman whose son is gay. Carrol Grady is a Seventh-day Adventist--a denomination which is, while not fundamentalist, a conservative denomination on social issues. Carrol speaks largely to the parents of Seventh-day Adventist gays and lesbians. However, people of any denomination can appreciate what Mrs. Grady has to share. As the wife of an Adventist missionary/minister, Carrol takes her Christianity seriously.
I did not want to belabor with yet another posting, but felt I wanted to at least leave your readers with these resources to get moving.
Listening is the very first thing we owe the oppressed.
—Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Andrew Dykstra - Toronto - Canada
I've seen "The Bible Tells Me So" in college. I was deeply appalled! Not so much at the view of the revisionists but the lack of balance of the conservative/traditional view. There were small sound-bytes by R. Albert Mohler and Richard Mouw, but the rest were not from scholars of the Scriptures but the typlical go-to evangelical Right celebrities like James Dobson and Pat Robertson. I pray that there would be a documentary that would document the struggle of both sides in the Church catholic to discern the Word and Spirit in this hour.
"... but as committed Christians, we are responsible to know 'Is the homosexual my neighbor? ..."
Neighbor, yes, but is he/she a role model for Christian leadership in TEC?
In any event, the ABC has "resolved" the issue: the world-wide Anglican Communion is now a two-track church composed of Angli-cans and Angli-cant's!
http://www.topix.net/religion/episcopal/2009/07/facing-gay-rift-anglican-sees-two-track-church
Hello all
i found the ramblings from from a fellow postee above
as for Mr Duggon he can legitimately vote with his money against the supposed way ward church.
however, while they are (the church) exhibiting biblical principles and God's love & presence it would be best not to pass judgments in the Lord's name on any given group of people for the fun of which. that is how the how anti gay theology appears palmed off as supporting high values biblical standards etc while neglecting legitimate lgbt persons of faith from life in the church which occurs in all major churches.
Eli
I used to believe that same-sex relationships were wrong and that the Episcopal Church was going to hell in a handbasket. But several things operated to change my mind. First, someone said to me one time, "The church has always been the institution that has told gay men and women that they were going to hell. What would life today for homosexuals if the church had been the institution that had consistenly told them that they were loved by God?" Second, the ancient world knew nothing of same-sex relationships. For Paul, it would have been a case of heterosexual men behaving badly. As a musician, I know lots of gay men who have been in long-term relationships for years and years. It seems to me that the church would want to encourage such relationships. Third, Jesus' strongest words of condemnation were reserved for the Pharisees, the law-keepers, who, in their self-righteousness, tried to keep everyone at bay. It was primarily on the basis of the last point, that I had to re-think my previous position, Plus, on the part of the evangelical Anglicans, there was frequently a hostile, un-loving attitude expressed toward "revisionists," that just seemed to me to make a mockery of Jesus' life. I really don't know what Jesus would say about same-sex blessings and gay clergy. But I would rather err on the side of grace than on the side of the law.
Ward Nelson
"... Second, the ancient world knew nothing of same-sex relationships. For Paul, it would have been a case of heterosexual men behaving badly."
According to Romans 1:26-7, it's not just "men behaving badly".
Romans 1:26-27 may or may not be about "heterosexual men behaving badly" but it is not about men who, through no fault of their own, are gay, and who wish to enter into a life-long partnership with someone else.
Mrs. Rutledge,
I so wish in your book "Not Ashamed of the Gospel" you had somehow dealt with this text in Romans 1. I am sure there are some who felt betrayed that you did not reiterate the traditional reading. There is nothing wrong with Paul, but there is surely much about Paul which we must reexamine. Surely we have much to learn, but also much, much, more to unlearn.
For myself, I am very much in your debt. One clue you gave somewhere which I have pursued avidly is the idea that we must listen carefully to narrative in Paul's epistles. I have tried hard to "listen" to him carefully, and I find my views re-shaped. Paul's narrative appears to speaks of covenant and this has altered my reading tremendously. I try not to read Paul with our own world view, but try hard to get inside his.
Andrew Dykstra - Toronto - Canada
"Romans 1:26-27 may or may not be about "heterosexual men behaving badly" but it is not about men who, through no fault of their own, are gay, and who wish to enter into a life-long partnership with someone else."
Are you equating the Bible w/the DSM?
Otherwise, there's no "may not" about it, despite what (Bishop) Spong and his advocates have to say about monogamous, life-long homosexual relationships.
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink
To those who are prepared to do some "heavy lifting", this article by Walter Wink may be helpful.
Walter Wink is not remotely a 'liberal' on this subject in the way that Bishop Spong may be. Mr Wink asks important questions in this article.
"The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today."
...come let us reason together, saith the Lord.
Andrew Dykstra - Toronto
Andrew Dykstra, you are a gem. I was at a loss as to why no one seemed to be prescribing deep scriptural study and discussion--with prayer and humility--to address the issue of homosexuality and the church. I thank you for your integrity as we try to progress in our understanding of the problem, one that is not fully resolved in my own mind.
Post a Comment