I don't know quite whether to laugh or cry. The bishops might have tried to be private, but Nashotah, a seminary training perhaps as many folks for non-Episcopal ecclesial bodies as for Episcopal dioceses, feels no obligation to participate.

I don't know quite what to make, either, of Dr. Westberg's comments: “That the House of Bishops didn’t just appoint a token conservative to the panel,” Westberg says, “indicates that they are interested in seeing these issues given the theological reflection they deserve. And that we are not expected to produce a ‘blended’ or compromise position is even more hopeful yet.” Certainly, no one has to give anything up, to "compromise" a position in the worst connotation of that word. That will make for authenticity in the statements that result. At the same time, there is danger that the two groups will basically talk at each other instead of to each other. If either or both of these "subcommittees" falls into the political trap of "playing to the base," we may feel there has been a good deal of restatement and reaction, but no real reflection.

Marshall Scott

OK. The conservatives have given up a closet hostage. Now it's the liberals turn.

Question: If there are four. maybe not so holy, hidden beings on each side, are two gay and two practicing heterosexuals so that there will be a fair and balanced secret report?

Is this guy Prof. Westberg committed to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church? Nashotah House isn't particularly, so why should we think he is? And if he's not, why are we supposed to listen to him?

The makeup of this secret committee is like appointing George Wallace to the Race Relations Committee. Yes, you'll get a full airing of why some consider Negroes inferior human beings, but who needs a restatement of that?

This issue is not primarily theological; it's about heterosexual privilege, heterosexual subsidies and heterosexual power.

Now we know 2 names -- Charry and Westberg. Anymore confessions of the closet?

I am wondering about people wanting to jump to conclusions devaluing some folks contributions before they are made. One item I don't hear people wrestling with here -- and I think it is clearly a prismatic one at present and that is: "What is the relationship between science and theology?"
In addition, I think no matter where one winds up on this issue there comes the questions of: "If this is my stance is the foregoing premise (s) the best way to get there?" (I had an ethics prof that doggedly made me struggle with that). And the other question being "What is to be the nature of my relationship to members of the community who share different conclusions?"And ultimately do you and I trust enough that in the end the Divine one will sort it all out in spite of our best efforts. just my musings

As I learned in my Christian Ethics class at VTS (and as any lawyer or high school debate captain will tell you), solid and convincing arguments can be made for either side of most "debatable" issues.

We already know this to be the case re the Christian view of same-sex marriage and ordination. In fact, we likely already know the arguments both sides of this sub-committee will make. I fail to see how this "opposing viewpoints" presentation will be very helpful to the HoB, or the church at large. It will only lead to the larger and more important question: how do you decide between the two?

It is my firm conviction that on most questions of Christian belief--even on belief, per se--arguments do not convince. You don't decide for or against affirming same-sex believers based on the soundness of the arguments (the point is, both arguments are sound, depending on your perspective). Arguments merely confirm what an individual already holds to be true (in the great majority of cases, anyway).

The only criterion that could push someone from one side to the other here, I think, is this: which argument bears fruit? In other words, which increases love, expands God's Kingdom, and works in the real world? Which is consonant with the lives of Christians as they are actually lived?

This is the only criterion Jesus gives us to judge between false and true ("You will know them by their fruits" cf. Mt 7:15-20). It's the only thing Jonathan Edwards could come up with to tell if a religious experience was real or not in "The Religious Affections." Not intentions; not arguments; results.

***
A couple of asides:
1. It is disappointing to me that the HoB still considers this to be a "debatable" issue. As Josh quite rightly points out above, how late in the day did it remain acceptable to debate whether or not Negroes really were children of God just the same way white folk were? Its tiresome to always be a specimen to be dissected by the secret experts.
2. That glbt folk are up for debate is quite clearly an example of (unexamined) straight privilege. The way "heterosexual" love, marriage, and family life is held to be the norm against which all others must be judged is simply false. It is a culturally specific construction of the modern West that modern people have imposed on the scriptures. Ancient cultures understood and practiced love, marriage, and family radically differently from how they are practiced today.

Jason Cox

With Marshall - laugh or weep?

With Ann - will the other committee members please step out?

Surely a lesson in how not to do a committee. Will the report from the secret committee have any credibility at all?

June Butler

Ellen Charry, who will be on the secret commission on sexuality, is an enemy of postmodernism. In the Christian Century, she once denounced Michel Foucault's The History of Sexuality (a book, with its subsequent volumes, which has had a major impact on academia. An Art and Humanities Index search shows Foucault is cited almost as much as Freud). I am not surprised by her antagonism to postmodern thought because she approached Christianity via the antigay and implicitly anti-intellectual Karl Barth. She teaches at Princeton, a less than progressive Ivy League school. The chapel at Princeton I vaguely remember has a corner where it is mentioned that Martin Luther King preached in its pulpit but I remember the information as rather downplaying the significance.
Her synopsis of Foucault fails to mention the radical ambivalence in Foucault toward traditional notions of liberation. Discourse constructs identities and rebellion predicated on such identities (such as gay or lesbian) both liberates and solidifies historical contingencies. There is no simple way out of power relations. Contra Charry, Foucault is in no way a libertarian in the traditional sense of the word. The notion of power could be critiqued in other ways, such as Derrida's, by starting with difference rather than a potentially solidifying notion of power. Foucault, if he was a libertarian or anarchist, was one who did not believe in libertarianism or anarchism. He tried to negotiate a space which was neither libertarian nor conservative.

Charry's nonreading of Foucault is not encouraging.

The link to Charry's denunciation of Foucault is

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_17_118/ai_75496686/pg_2/

or

http://tinyurl.com/n6286t

The History of Sexuality
Christian Century , May 23, 2001
by Ellen Charry

Gary Paul Gilbert

I fail to see how this "opposing viewpoints" presentation will be very helpful to the HoB, or the church at large.¨

Not to worry, pretending this is a ¨issue¨ is laughable...why not invite +Pope Benedict, Thomas S. Monson, prophets extraorindare, to come huddle with heavyweights +Tutu and +Spong...naturally co-chaired by the Dali Lama and Queen Elizabeth II

Sorry. I still am failing to see why this study is even being done. We have studied and studied. This is nothing more than another delaying tactic so "stay on the fence" and not do what we know is right.

I guess dialogue and theological reflection are only necessary until you get the result you want.

The "secret" make up of this panel does not disturb me. This secrecy allows the open and honest exchange of views and provides for the real possibility of consensus rather than each person being beholden to his or her "party."

Let the group debate and discuss and then let's debate the resultant report(s).

YBIC,
Phil Snyder