Bishop Robinson isn't the real issue

An article in the Concord Monitor claims that the real issue in the Episcopal Church isn't the election and consecration of an openly gay bishop. The author argues that the actual problem is that the Episcopal Church is not being able to respond to the real challenges it is facing in a rapidly changing world because conservative voices keep the focus on Robinson rather than on the larger issues.

From the beginning of the article:

"Is the Episcopal Church's impending schism really about the theological rift that sprung up after the consecration of its first openly gay bishop, the Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire?

Or is the brouhaha really about a church in battle with itself about how to be financially solvent and theologically relevant in today's competitive religious marketplace?

Last weekend, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh voted in favor of separating from the national church over theological beliefs on homosexuality. 'What we're trying to do is state clearly in the United States for the authority of Scripture,' Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh said after the vote.

But 'authority of Scripture' doesn't hold weight here because the Episcopal Church has always been challenged on this issue.

In the 1970s, the argument for authority of Scripture came up with the ordination of women - and so, too, did the threat of a schism. But in 1989, the church consecrated its first female bishop, Barbara Harris."

Read the rest here.

Posted by Nicholas Knisely on November 9, 2007 11:07 AM | |
Comments (3)

Now Nicholas, the author of this commentary isn't exactly unbiased, now is she? She's progressive, of course she's going to blame the conservatives? And not only that, but she also goes after Barack Obama as well in this commentary: http://www.irenemonroe.com/2007/10/23/obama-the-vote-whore-with-%e2%80%98ex-gay%e2%80%99-at-his-side/

She's the lefty, don't you think? Who do you think is mainstream? Barack Obama perhaps????

Mary Ailes

Posted by BabyBlue [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 9, 2007 12:35 PM

I wouldn't make any claim that she's unbiased Mary. But it is a counter argument to the one being made by some folks (not all on the conservative-side granted) that the "issue" is +Gene's ordination.

Posted by Nicholas Knisely [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 9, 2007 1:06 PM

I don't know what I ate for lunch, but I sure don't like my own tone in my posting. Yours is much better, Nicholas. ;-)

Please pardon me for the frustration - I'm not surprised to see a religious progressive (not just politically progressive - but theologically progressive) argue that the issue is about scripture. It is about scripture and Gene's consecration was a dramatic illustration of the real division - between a historic Anglican understanding of the place of the authority of scripture in church doctrine and polity and the American church's "new understanding" that scripture is many things to many people and go ahead and toss out the difficult bits or that God is doing a new thing and now blessing what is sin.

What really caught my eye though was her criticism of Obama (who went to the fuu fuu high school in Honolulu while I was in the public school system in Honolulu, though we graduated in the same year). I hadn't seen that before and find it fascinating.

Thanks for your kind tone, Nicholas. I'll try to get mine back on track. Bless you.

Mary Ailes

Posted by BabyBlue [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 9, 2007 6:08 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space