Of Rowan and Aretha
I have read the archbishop’s statement a few times. There’s much to discuss, and I think it will keep us busy for a few days. But there’s one essential point that I think might easily be missed, and I won’t to focus on it, because, alas, I think he’s got it entirely wrong.
As I read the archbishop, he, like many others, is suggesting that the struggle in the Anglican Communion is not about homosexuality but about how we make decisions in concert. To me that is similar to saying that the American Civil War was not about slavery but about states' rights. Both arguments allow you to ignore sins against humanity while you debate the nature of polity.
People say that the Communion needs structures to help it handle future controversies, such as the one over lay presidency. Maybe, but the comparison doesn't shed much light on our current situation.
Ask yourself how some parents react when they find out their children is being taught by a gay man. Now imagine that those same parents have just learned that their child is being taught by a lay person who has presided at the Eucharist?
Lay presidency may inspire disagreement, or even distaste. But it does not inspire panic or revulsion. And it does us no good to pretend that panic and revulsion do not shape this debate. I agree with the Archbishop when he says that an inability to “remain fully in communion with the [Episcopal] Church …should not be automatically seen as some kind of blind bigotry against gay people.”
But the key word there is “automatically.”
If you don’t acknowledge the widespread existence of anti-gay bigotry in the Communion, and in this country, then it is easy to portray the Episcopal Church as an impatient group that broke ranks with its more prudent, but essentially likeminded friends.
But, as the eminent theologian Aretha Franklin once asked, “Who’s Zoomin’ Who?”
"Ask yourself how some parents react when they find out their children is being taught by a gay man. Now imagine that those same parents have just learned that their child is being taught by a lay person who has presided at the Eucharist?"
Jim, good questions. Let me turn it up a notch higher (perhaps to eleven, if you will) to help focus in on why this really isn't about homosexuality:
Ask yourself how you would react when you learn that your teenager's youth pastor told them all that pre-marital sex was not sinful as long as the participants really loved one another and were not harming each other.
Ask yourself how you feel when your fourth grader comes home and says her Sunday School teacher said that Jesus was simply a good teacher and not really the Son of God and certainly not her savior.
Ask yourself how you feel when the rector at your church tells the congregation that he is no longer going to include the Confession of Sin in the service because he doesn't believe in Sin and thinks it is a harmful concept to the minds of his parishioners.
Posted by Widening Gyre | June 27, 2006 3:30 PM
Sorry, WG, I am not following. I get what you are saying about what you see as wider issues in the Church, but Rowan isn't speaking to any of those.
Posted by Jim Naughton | June 27, 2006 3:37 PM
Sorry for the confusion. I thought your point was that you aren't buying into ABC's statement that the struggle right now isn't about homosexual behavior but about communion behavior.
You then used your questions to prove your point.
But what I intended with my additional questions is to say we could all play the game of "what this is really about" by asking our own questions.
I truly believe that GC 2003 and GC 2006 did present "communion behavior" problems. If we had adopted a resolution declaring open communion to be acceptable, we would be in the same mess (but I will grant your point that the emotional level of outrage would be less--I certainly am not going to say that "anti-gay bigotry" doesn't exist, just that I don't think it is the explanation for the outrage.
Posted by Widening Gyre | June 27, 2006 4:34 PM