This entry was posted
on Monday, July 13th, 2009 at 11:55 pm and is filed under GenCon 09 Viewpoint.
You can follow any responses to just this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
5 Responses to “Bishop’s Audio Report (Monday, July 13)”
Indeed, we will, Jane. To be specific, to what doctrine and Holy Scripture are you referring?
My point is that, even if I view exclusion of LGBTs from exercising their full participation in TEC (and the wider Communion) as violence against a group of people, I still do not think that those who would exclude them should be ushered from the table. There are those on the other side of this issue who would much rather show us the door than sit prayerfully in disagreement.
I grant you that my viewing our exclusionary practices as violence and apartheid does not mean that others need see it that way, and I do respect your having a completely different perspective on this issue. I am not “casting” this exclusion as violence and apartheid to be extravagantly incendiary; I simply cannot see such intentional exclusion any other way.
Of course, being a majority is also not necessarily being wrong, either. Were the “numbers” against support of this issue in TEC, I would still feel that Spirit is calling us to full inclusion, just as you in your “minority” position feel that TEC is being led astray. I suspect that in DWTX, my position is the minority position, though I feel that it is imperative that those of us in support of full inclusion in this diocese make our voices heard, too. I am not gay, and yet I feel our church’s exclusionary practices harm all of us – not just our LGBT sisters and brothers.
I ask this question with all due respect, and with a desire to listen: What forms the ground of your sense that full inclusion of LGBTs is not the direction in which to move? Is it more than Bishop Lillibridge’s “not wanting to offend the larger Communion” position? Because, for me, a diverse Communion should be able to live in disagreement and love, without people of conscience (on all sides) having to defer to a dominant, or proscriptive, position. What of the fact that our own diocesan practices regarding non-ordination of LGBTs offend me? My “being offended” still does not entitle me to seek anyone’s exclusion. You’ll note in Bishop Lillibridge’s own comments about the HOB’s passing DO25 (and his vote against) that, if the resolution is “descriptive,” he has no problem with it: with “description,” he will continue to exclude LGBTs from seeking ordination in DWTX (as he feels led to do so), while still living, one hopes, in fellowship with those in TEC (and this diocese) who feel led to proceed otherwise.
I’m confident that Holy Spirit is leading you and me, Jane. We are both witnesses for something, albeit witnesses to positions in dynamic tension. God’s peace to you.
Paschal, you use verbosity to sing praises for your position but many of your notes fall flat. You say you are happy for there to be differences of opinion and disagreement, then label such disagreement an act of violence. To respectfully and prayerfully disagree should not require the setting aside of doctrine and Holy Scripture, and upholding Holy Scripture is not discrimination. Further, being a majority is not necessarily being right. Thanks be to God that the Holy Spirit has not led Bishop Lillibridge to “move forward” in the direction you suggest. Let’s just agree to respectfully and prayerfully disagree.
I am happy for there to be differences of opinion and acknowledged disagreement on the issue of full inclusion in TEC. While an enthusiastic supporter of these resolutions, I do not share the notion that such progress is simply a matter of making people “feel comfortable.” Exclusion of LGBTs from being able to fully live into God’s call in their (and our) lives goes far beyond making them “uncomfortable;” such exclusion is, to my mind, an act of violence, not only upon them, but upon all of us who witness such violence.
Read Carter Heyward’s record of her own journey to ordination as a woman in 1974. That journey was hardly comfortable for any involved, both for proponents and opponents of such change.
What remains incomprehensible to me is that the there are those in the Anglican Communion who seems incapable of even the most basic of adult imperatives: the ability to respectfully and prayerfully disagree. Do I want the AC to move to full inclusion? Of course I do. Should they be ramrodded to do so? Of course not. I am committed to ALL being at the table, even those who, to my mind, are openly and canonically discriminating against members in their own churches. I simply ask that those of us in favor of full inclusion also be respectfully welcomed at the table.
I do not agree with Bishop Lillibridge’s contention that voting for DO25 is a slap in the face of the Anglican Communion members who do not see things as the majority in TEC does. There are people that I deeply love in my own congregation who do not support DO25. Is their disagreement with me a slap in my face? Not in the least. I love them. Bishop Lillibridge, were he so moved (and I respectfully understand that he is not) to vote for DO25, could (and I am certain, would) be in loving fellowship with those in the AC who would disagree with such a decision on his part. In fact, I feel that Bishop Lillibridge is possessed of such singular gifts that he could be a leader in moving forward not just TEC on these issues, but the larger Communion itself.
The notion that we must wait on all to come to a particular position before we move (as I believe Spirit is moving us) is a hard one to fathom. If we were inclined to such imperatives, neither Carter Heyward nor many other very gifted women in our midst (not to mention, our own Presiding Bishop) would still be waiting on Bishop Iker for his consent to their ordination.
I don’t know about “2/3 of Americans” Katherine, but apparently 2/3 of TEC (The Episcopal Church). How can anyone not understand how devisive this is for the greater communion of the Church? And people wonder why our numbers are decreasing? Apparently TEC stands for anything that makes people “feel comfortable”, when doctrine and Holy scripture instruct and admonish us otherwise. I wonder how impressed our Heavenly Father was with the impassioned debate and vote?
Indeed, we will, Jane. To be specific, to what doctrine and Holy Scripture are you referring?
My point is that, even if I view exclusion of LGBTs from exercising their full participation in TEC (and the wider Communion) as violence against a group of people, I still do not think that those who would exclude them should be ushered from the table. There are those on the other side of this issue who would much rather show us the door than sit prayerfully in disagreement.
I grant you that my viewing our exclusionary practices as violence and apartheid does not mean that others need see it that way, and I do respect your having a completely different perspective on this issue. I am not “casting” this exclusion as violence and apartheid to be extravagantly incendiary; I simply cannot see such intentional exclusion any other way.
Of course, being a majority is also not necessarily being wrong, either. Were the “numbers” against support of this issue in TEC, I would still feel that Spirit is calling us to full inclusion, just as you in your “minority” position feel that TEC is being led astray. I suspect that in DWTX, my position is the minority position, though I feel that it is imperative that those of us in support of full inclusion in this diocese make our voices heard, too. I am not gay, and yet I feel our church’s exclusionary practices harm all of us – not just our LGBT sisters and brothers.
I ask this question with all due respect, and with a desire to listen: What forms the ground of your sense that full inclusion of LGBTs is not the direction in which to move? Is it more than Bishop Lillibridge’s “not wanting to offend the larger Communion” position? Because, for me, a diverse Communion should be able to live in disagreement and love, without people of conscience (on all sides) having to defer to a dominant, or proscriptive, position. What of the fact that our own diocesan practices regarding non-ordination of LGBTs offend me? My “being offended” still does not entitle me to seek anyone’s exclusion. You’ll note in Bishop Lillibridge’s own comments about the HOB’s passing DO25 (and his vote against) that, if the resolution is “descriptive,” he has no problem with it: with “description,” he will continue to exclude LGBTs from seeking ordination in DWTX (as he feels led to do so), while still living, one hopes, in fellowship with those in TEC (and this diocese) who feel led to proceed otherwise.
I’m confident that Holy Spirit is leading you and me, Jane. We are both witnesses for something, albeit witnesses to positions in dynamic tension. God’s peace to you.
Paschal, you use verbosity to sing praises for your position but many of your notes fall flat. You say you are happy for there to be differences of opinion and disagreement, then label such disagreement an act of violence. To respectfully and prayerfully disagree should not require the setting aside of doctrine and Holy Scripture, and upholding Holy Scripture is not discrimination. Further, being a majority is not necessarily being right. Thanks be to God that the Holy Spirit has not led Bishop Lillibridge to “move forward” in the direction you suggest. Let’s just agree to respectfully and prayerfully disagree.
I am happy for there to be differences of opinion and acknowledged disagreement on the issue of full inclusion in TEC. While an enthusiastic supporter of these resolutions, I do not share the notion that such progress is simply a matter of making people “feel comfortable.” Exclusion of LGBTs from being able to fully live into God’s call in their (and our) lives goes far beyond making them “uncomfortable;” such exclusion is, to my mind, an act of violence, not only upon them, but upon all of us who witness such violence.
Read Carter Heyward’s record of her own journey to ordination as a woman in 1974. That journey was hardly comfortable for any involved, both for proponents and opponents of such change.
What remains incomprehensible to me is that the there are those in the Anglican Communion who seems incapable of even the most basic of adult imperatives: the ability to respectfully and prayerfully disagree. Do I want the AC to move to full inclusion? Of course I do. Should they be ramrodded to do so? Of course not. I am committed to ALL being at the table, even those who, to my mind, are openly and canonically discriminating against members in their own churches. I simply ask that those of us in favor of full inclusion also be respectfully welcomed at the table.
I do not agree with Bishop Lillibridge’s contention that voting for DO25 is a slap in the face of the Anglican Communion members who do not see things as the majority in TEC does. There are people that I deeply love in my own congregation who do not support DO25. Is their disagreement with me a slap in my face? Not in the least. I love them. Bishop Lillibridge, were he so moved (and I respectfully understand that he is not) to vote for DO25, could (and I am certain, would) be in loving fellowship with those in the AC who would disagree with such a decision on his part. In fact, I feel that Bishop Lillibridge is possessed of such singular gifts that he could be a leader in moving forward not just TEC on these issues, but the larger Communion itself.
The notion that we must wait on all to come to a particular position before we move (as I believe Spirit is moving us) is a hard one to fathom. If we were inclined to such imperatives, neither Carter Heyward nor many other very gifted women in our midst (not to mention, our own Presiding Bishop) would still be waiting on Bishop Iker for his consent to their ordination.
I don’t know about “2/3 of Americans” Katherine, but apparently 2/3 of TEC (The Episcopal Church). How can anyone not understand how devisive this is for the greater communion of the Church? And people wonder why our numbers are decreasing? Apparently TEC stands for anything that makes people “feel comfortable”, when doctrine and Holy scripture instruct and admonish us otherwise. I wonder how impressed our Heavenly Father was with the impassioned debate and vote?
So … “umbutu” really means “what works” for 2/3 of Americans???