13. Same Sex Blessings (there are resolutions that these be drafted and implemented, but no specific liturgies are mentioned.)
(See 12). Could you believe how recently I would have supported these? Despite what you might think, there are precedents in the history of the Universal Church. Unfortunately, the theology upon which they were based does not fully survive. Two days ago, I was ready to argue against the Bishop of South Carolina on this resolution. (He is against it.) Now, a little thought and prayer has made me understand from where he is coming. We are letting our enthusiasm and outpace our intellects. (And not all enthusiasm issues from on high.)
14. The Source of Most of the Trouble
I have three arguments in support of Robinson.
1. Apostolic tradition: Dioceses in the first millennium of Christian history and sometimes afterward were considered to have chief discretion over the election and discipline of their bishops. Note the messages to the churches in the Book of Revelation in which the Spirit encourages all the churches to make the choice to be faithful in the midst of individual troubles. Yet Ephesus was not instructed to save Philadelphia. As long as you reject the Petrine doctrine, the equality of the apostles also recommends local autonomy. This tradition only ended when important bishops tired of being hired by aristocracies and run out of the town by mobs. The Popes used to be chosen this way. When national kings entered the fray during the investiture controversies of the Later Middle Ages, diocesan independence suffered. Anglicanism managed to save some measure of the ancient apostolic structure out of the Reformation. We ought to respect New Hampshire and let it have its bishop.
2. Ecclesiastical polity in this case is analogous to civil polity:
The Episcopal Church was established by many drafters of the United States Constitution, who modelled one after the other. In England, Parliament not only included ecclesiastics but the Church had its own Parliament called Convocation. Hence, civil principles should apply. First, the bishop governs a diocese (or state). The Federal Government only is required to maintain republican government in a state. It usually has no discretion over elected governors. Second, the bishop is a member of the House of Bishops or a Senator. Both the Senate and the House are allowed to expel members, but the question is not expulsion, it is confirmation. By English law, Parliament is the judge of election returns. Theoretically, Parliament is supposed to decide whether an election was valid or not. As far as I know (and I had a friend in the election), the election was fairly conducted. Hence, let New Hampshire have its bishop.
3. Scriptural (Huh?)
I Timothy 3:1 and following
"THIS is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife , vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."
Catholic bishops, if I have heard correctly, get around the key requirement by being married to the Church.
As far as I know, Robinson fulfills everything but the blameless (yet it is not meant through Timothy that a bishop should be absolutely blameless, for "there is no one good" as is said through Paul in Romans and "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves"). But what about husband of one wife? Robinson has lived more faithfully than most in this respect. He tried reparative therapy, married, realized he had not been miraculously transformed, and divorced his wife in church and by the civil law. He helped raise his two daughters. He has lived monandrously with his partner. I argue that any objection on these kinds of Scriptural grounds may be correct but a concession to death and hypocrisy. A celibate homosexual recently was forced to remove his name from consideration for an episcopal post in England. No one cared about his conduct. They cared about honest and even inborn feelings. Those who object to Robinson do so on the same grounds. If I am to be consistent with my earlier positions, then let New Hampshire have its bishop.
(but wait, there's more)
ESA(20030730.6)
(See 12). Could you believe how recently I would have supported these? Despite what you might think, there are precedents in the history of the Universal Church. Unfortunately, the theology upon which they were based does not fully survive. Two days ago, I was ready to argue against the Bishop of South Carolina on this resolution. (He is against it.) Now, a little thought and prayer has made me understand from where he is coming. We are letting our enthusiasm and outpace our intellects. (And not all enthusiasm issues from on high.)
14. The Source of Most of the Trouble
I have three arguments in support of Robinson.
1. Apostolic tradition: Dioceses in the first millennium of Christian history and sometimes afterward were considered to have chief discretion over the election and discipline of their bishops. Note the messages to the churches in the Book of Revelation in which the Spirit encourages all the churches to make the choice to be faithful in the midst of individual troubles. Yet Ephesus was not instructed to save Philadelphia. As long as you reject the Petrine doctrine, the equality of the apostles also recommends local autonomy. This tradition only ended when important bishops tired of being hired by aristocracies and run out of the town by mobs. The Popes used to be chosen this way. When national kings entered the fray during the investiture controversies of the Later Middle Ages, diocesan independence suffered. Anglicanism managed to save some measure of the ancient apostolic structure out of the Reformation. We ought to respect New Hampshire and let it have its bishop.
2. Ecclesiastical polity in this case is analogous to civil polity:
The Episcopal Church was established by many drafters of the United States Constitution, who modelled one after the other. In England, Parliament not only included ecclesiastics but the Church had its own Parliament called Convocation. Hence, civil principles should apply. First, the bishop governs a diocese (or state). The Federal Government only is required to maintain republican government in a state. It usually has no discretion over elected governors. Second, the bishop is a member of the House of Bishops or a Senator. Both the Senate and the House are allowed to expel members, but the question is not expulsion, it is confirmation. By English law, Parliament is the judge of election returns. Theoretically, Parliament is supposed to decide whether an election was valid or not. As far as I know (and I had a friend in the election), the election was fairly conducted. Hence, let New Hampshire have its bishop.
3. Scriptural (Huh?)
I Timothy 3:1 and following
"THIS is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife , vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."
Catholic bishops, if I have heard correctly, get around the key requirement by being married to the Church.
As far as I know, Robinson fulfills everything but the blameless (yet it is not meant through Timothy that a bishop should be absolutely blameless, for "there is no one good" as is said through Paul in Romans and "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves"). But what about husband of one wife? Robinson has lived more faithfully than most in this respect. He tried reparative therapy, married, realized he had not been miraculously transformed, and divorced his wife in church and by the civil law. He helped raise his two daughters. He has lived monandrously with his partner. I argue that any objection on these kinds of Scriptural grounds may be correct but a concession to death and hypocrisy. A celibate homosexual recently was forced to remove his name from consideration for an episcopal post in England. No one cared about his conduct. They cared about honest and even inborn feelings. Those who object to Robinson do so on the same grounds. If I am to be consistent with my earlier positions, then let New Hampshire have its bishop.
(but wait, there's more)
ESA(20030730.6)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home