For the Bible Tells Me So; Bishop Robinson at the Sundance Film Festival

At The Center Of The Divide
Hartford Courant

By JOEL LANG

January 23, 2007

You've been demonized by so many. ... How do you help me to not demonize others?
Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop at the center of the rift over homosexuality that has led some Virginia parishes to align themselves with the Anglican Church of Nigeria, stopped in Hartford Monday to deliver a message of reconciliation for the church and some news about himself.
'I believe with my whole heart that the Archbishop of Nigeria [Peter Akinola] and I are going to be in heaven together. And we're going to get along together, because God won't have it any other way. So we better start practicing now,' Robinson said at a luncheon attended by a dozen local church leaders at Real Art Ways.

He was responding to a plea from The Very Rev. Mark Pendleton, dean of Christ Church Cathedral in Hartford, who told Robinson, 'You've been demonized by so many. ... How do you help me to not demonize others?'

Looking at ease in gray slacks and a blue fleece vest worn unzipped over a burgundy shirt, Robinson, 59, said he received 500 to 600 e-mails a day, both angry and supportive, after he was elected Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, the event that ignited revolts by some conservative parishes, including a group known as the Connecticut Six.

'I think everybody is doing the best we can. We're all trying to figure life out,' Robinson said.

'The thing that has sustained me through all this is God has seemed so very close that prayer has seemed almost redundant. ... Sometimes God calms the storm and sometimes God lets the storm rage, and calms the child.'

Personally, 'I couldn't be happier. I think that's the best revenge,' he said.

He said his 15,000-member diocese was healthy, but the news he seemed most eager to relay was that immediately after the luncheon he was leaving for the Sundance Film Festival, where a documentary film, featuring his story and those of four other gay families, has been nominated for a grand jury prize.

Titled 'For the Bible Tells Me So,' it is about families split by their beliefs about homosexuality and Scripture. He said his own parents talked more openly to the filmmaker than they had to him after his own announcement at age 39 that he was gay and getting divorced.

At the end of the luncheon, Robinson hugged the host, Bishop John Selders of the Amistad United Church of Christ, and said, 'If I miss my plane to Sundance, I'm going to hold you all responsible.'

In an interview before the luncheon, sitting on the edge of the stage in the Real Art Ways cinema, Robinson said the media has exaggerated the strength and importance of the small minority of parishes at odds with the national church's liberal stance on homosexuality.

The parishes are 'seeking to get themselves recognized as the true expression of Anglicanism in this country and not inconsequentially get the Episcopal Church - I don't know what the word is - unrecognized as that legitimate expression. And I think they are using more conservative churches around the globe to support that claim,' he said.

'In a world facing 40 million people dying of AIDS and an increasing gap between rich and poor, this seems like a waste of our time and energy, debating the rightness and wrongness of gay and lesbian people and their relationships,' he said.

'I think it breaks God's heart that we would be focusing on such an internal issue, instead of focusing upon the world which, as I understand it, Jesus called us to.'

Robinson said the division over homosexuality is not much different from an earlier split over ordaining women priests.

'Let's face it, I believe God is doing a new thing in the world. I don't just see civil forces at work in terms of increasing acceptance of gay and lesbian people. I see God's hand at work there, and I believe we are joining God in that work in terms of this debate within the church,' he said.

New York or Nigeria; Which do We Choose?

Not long ago, the "enemy du jour" stalking traditional Christian denominations was "creeping congregationalism."
That meant the tendency of congregations to function independently of traditional denominational standards or structures. Conservatives in the Episcopal Church, for example, lamented the loss of cohesion or what they called "catholicity."

Then the denomination, with significant cohesion, made some decisions the conservatives didn't like, and suddenly they are demanding their own form of congregationalism, claiming they have the right to leave the national church and to take their property with them. And they demand a choice as to which "catholicity" they recognize: Nigeria or New York.

In other words, in this argument, as in most religious arguments, the issue is rarely higher-order concerns like Scripture, tradition or reason.
The issue tends to be the lower-order concern of willfulness: We want what we want, and we will do anything to get it, even quoting Scriptures we never read before if they make our case, or making common cause with a bishop in Nigeria whose existence previously meant nothing to us.

Consider the "victim role." Some people or groups are indeed victims, and they deserve justice.

But even when doors open, tables turn and balances shift, it's difficult to stop using guilt, shame and remembered grievances to get one's way.

We know this behavior well, of course, for we use it all the time. It's the "law of the sandbox": If high morality works, use it.

If a threat of parental intervention works, use it. In conflicts, the air rings with cries of "no fair," "you're mean," "I'll call my mother," and "God will get you." When those fail, on comes violence.

I suggest we drop the hypocrisy of sandbox bullying. Let's just name it. I want one thing, you want another, so how are we going to work it out? Power plays aren't about principle or holiness. They are about power.

A good example is immigration. Some cite America's ideal of receiving the world's oppressed and desperate; others cite an ideal of the rule of law.

Both are worthy ideals. Economic arguments cut both directions. So do faith arguments. Some see a racial bias against immigrants of color; some deny that.

The fact of the matter is that we disagree, and whatever the basis of our disagreements - principle, economic calculation or bigotry - they won't be resolved by dueling ideals or dueling analyses or dueling vigilantes.

Disagreements can only be resolved by cutting through the smoke and asking, What is truly at stake? And how are we going to work this out?

Working it out, in turn, means looking for compromise - never easy when feelings have been ratcheted up by bullying based on alleged principle. It means accepting the other as having a reasonable viewpoint and a right to express it - not easy when the other has been demonized.

And it means considering the wisdom of not deciding; that is, not needing to enforce a single path. That's not easy, either, when all paths but one's own have been labeled sinful or unpatriotic.

I think that's one reason Jesus taught about wealth and power, not about doctrine or law. Forming right-opinion is easy work, and arguing on the basis of right-opinion can become a cheap smokescreen.

Willfulness comes down to power, so let's deal with power.

In a democracy, power should be allocated by law and votes, not by sandbox bullying. In a Christian environment, power should be allocated by love and sacrifice, not by sandbox bullying.

The problem isn't disagreement. The problem is sandbox bullying.

Tom Ehrich is a writer, consultant and leader of workshops. His book, "Just Wondering, Jesus: 100 Questions People Want to Ask," was published by Morehouse Publishing. An Episcopal priest, he lives in Durham, N.C. His Web site is
HERE

You are Called to Make a Difference (2nd Video)

Last week I began here with a series of videos from the American Anglican Council on the general theme 'Choose This Day'. These short videos are prepared by AAC and ACN (Anglican Communion Network). The speakers include Bishop Robert Duncan, and others who (in general) disagree with the direction the Episcopal Church has taken in recent years. I -- for one -- disagree with the posture of these men, but I think we as Christians and Episcopalians are called upon to examine all the evidence presented and _then_ decide what to do and where to go.

This second presentation is entitled 'You are Called to Make a Difference' and you can view it HERE . This week's speaker is Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, PA. Please watch and listen carefully. Future presentations will be given by Kendall Harmon, a canon and scholar in the Episcopal Church, whose web-blogs appear in our links on this page. If you missed last week's presentation outlining some of the complaints about ECUSA by these men, I suggest you view it first. (Look at the entries from several days back, entitled 'Choose This Day'.

I will again insist that as an Episcopalian who also happens to be gay, I am quite happy and content where I am. Our church teaches from the Bible -- God's Word -- and I find nothing in God's Word which specifically deals with homosexuality. Others will disagree with me, of course. Anyway, check out this second in a series of videos from AAC. Let's try and be fair with them, and at least listen to their messages.

PAT

The Shame of Our Schism and Divorce

Split in Episcopal Church should sadden all of Christian family
Friday, January 19, 2007
JO BAILEY WELLS

The news of schism in the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia is sad for Christians everywhere, regardless of denomination or persuasion.

One of the wardens of The Falls Church put it well: There is a death in the family. As a part of the family — as a Christian and, moreover, as an Anglican — I am in mourning.

In December, two of the oldest, largest and wealthiest congregations in Virginia voted to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Province of Nigeria, with whom they share similar convictions concerning God’s revelation in Scripture. The move is measured (they are remaining within the Anglican Communion) and provisional (leaving the way open, in theory, for reconciliation). Still, they propose serving under the authority of a Nigerian archbishop 5,000 miles away.

The conversations that have unfolded within the Anglican Communion since the consecration of a practicing homosexual as bishop of New Hampshire continue to be misunderstood by both liberals and conservatives. Taught by Thomas Jefferson to claim an inalienable right to liberty in all religious matters, American Anglicans on both sides seem to find defending their autonomy more urgent than defending the "communities of discernment" and "global interdependence" characteristic of Anglicanism.

The ordination of Gene Robinson was viewed in some parts of the Anglican Communion as a case of ecclesiastical imperialism by the American left. Now, the departure of some churches from the Episcopal fold is seen as a corresponding act of congregational imperialism. Even the conservatives are proving themselves liberals, in a sense, deep down: more committed to their consciences and convictions — to being "right" — than to the wider body of the church in which they find themselves.

Is it not time to stop fighting the American War of Independence? This is not an issue of whether Americans should be able to run their own affairs; it is about whether American Christians need Christians in the rest of the world to help them find ways of talking to one another. Autonomy exercised at the level of government in 1776 was liberating; autonomy exercised today by people of faith in communion together feels more like oppression.

What is at stake in the contemporary situation is not principally a view about homosexuality. What is at stake is the question of whether one small branch of American Protestants can find the generosity to continue in common life together — or whether, when faced with internal disagreement, they choose to go separate ways. Are Episcopalians more committed to their opinions than to their brothers and sisters, those to whom they are bonded in baptism, at home and abroad? I fear so, just like so many other Protestants of the past 400 years. I had thought Anglicans were different. In my distress, I recall the words of the French poet Charles Peguy describing the Day of Judgment: "What will Jesus say to us if we go to him without the others? "

Of course, members of the conservative Virginia parishes would bring to Jesus’ attention the Nigerian Anglicans with whom they are affiliating. The remaining Episcopalians might point to the gay people their churches have welcomed. But it is the more costly engagement between brothers and sisters who find it hard to live together and eat together — yet continue to work together and break bread together — that constitutes the calling of the church.

All parties in this crisis speak of the cost of conscience, even though the cost bears so much more heavily on more impoverished communities of faith elsewhere in the world.

Whatever happened to the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, patience, gentleness? Couldn’t we have waited together, perhaps cried together, certainly argued together, but kept on worshipping together for a little longer?

The Rev. Jo Bailey Wells is associate professor of the practice of Christian ministry and Bible and director of Anglican studies at Duke University’s Divinity School.

Sermons and Talks from American Anglican Council

In this absolutely wicked winter weather here in s.e. Kansas this year, getting to church once or twice each week has been extremely difficult. It occurs to me I am not the only person who misses church when attendance is difficult. So to partially compensate for this,I decided to bring some Anglican thinking to your computer weekly for the rest of the winter months.

To do this, I found an interesting series of videos from two sources: The American Anglican Council and the Anglican Communion Network. Now to be totally honest with you, I disagree very strongly with ACN and AAC on a few topics, not the least of which is their dislike of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice. Three of their spokespersons are the Reverend Doctor Kendall Harmon, and Rt. Reverend Robert Duncan, Bishop in Pittsburgh, PA and Reverend Leslie P. Fairfield.

But, there are many Episcopalians who very much admire these men for the stances they have taken regards the Episcopal Church and its current stance on social issues versus the way the Episcopal Church used to be. So I am going to present a series of video documentaries the AAC prepared. These documentaries are, frankly biased toward the 'Anglican viewpoint' and whether you enjoy listening to these speakers or are quite angry about the way they have encouraged -- in my opinion --
wholesale abandonment of ECUSA, please join me in viewing these documentaries each week for the rest of January and all of February.

Although as noted, I strongly disagree with some of their sentiment, we are, as Episcopalians and Christians called to listen to, and enter into dialog with, our more conservative brothers. Now, let us give our attention to the first in a continuing series (at least six or eight weeks) of messages on the general topic 'Choose This Day'. Future talks in this series include next week's presentation 'You are Called to Make a Difference' with the speaker being Robert Duncan, then the following week a presentation called 'The Iceberg' (What's Really at Stake') with Kendall Harmon.

Quite obviously, these messages are NOT the opinions of the Episcopal Church, USA, but I think it is only fair that we hear what these gentlemen have to say. This week's video HERE

Atheists: The Bigots' Friends

By Giles Fraiser
Vicar of Putney

Atheists: the bigots' friends.
Most Christians back gay rights - and to claim otherwise only boosts the fundamentalists.

Media atheists are fast becoming the new best friends of fundamentalist Christians. For every time they write about religion they are doing very effective PR for a fundamentalist worldview. Many of the propositions that fundamentalists are keen to sell the public are oft-repeated corner-stones of the media atheist's philosophy of religion.

Both partners in this unholy alliance agree that fundamentalist religion is the real thing and that more reflective and socially progressive versions of faith are pale imitations, counterfeits even. This endorsement is of enormous help to fundamentalists. What they are really threatened by is not aggressive atheism - indeed that helps secure a sense of persecution that is essential to group solidarity - but the sort of robustly self-critical faith that knows the Bible and the church's traditions, and can challenge bad religion on its own terms. Fundamentalists hate what they see as the enemy within. And by refusing to acknowledge any variegation in Christian thought, media atheists play right into their hands.
Fundamentalism was invented only in the 20th century. None the less, in their struggle for secular values, commentators such as Polly Toynbee are effectively handing fundamentalists the title of official opposition. In the context of the fight to extend anti-discrimination legislation to homosexuals, that's a dangerous gift. For it grants the fundamentalist's worldview unwarranted extra lobbying power with government.
Many Christians don't believe homosexuality is a sin. Far from it. We think it's a gift of God - a means by which many show love and commitment and compassion. This is not an eccentric view within the church. It's also the view of the Archbishop of Canterbury, though, admittedly, he is insufficiently bold in expressing it. Indeed, a great many Christians are deeply committed to the sexual-orientation legislation. They would have no truck with those who want to ban homosexuals from Christian boarding houses or classrooms. But bigots who dress up in the clothing of faith are being encouraged by media atheists in the view that orthodox biblical Christianity is intrinsically anti-gay. That's rubbish. And the only people who benefit from this line of argument are the religious gay-bashers.
Ignoring the fact that Christianity invented secularism, on these pages last week Toynbee described the row over sexual orientation regulations as "a mighty test of strength between the religious and the secular". Christians of the loony right will have been nodding their heads in agreement. For the more fundamentalists can set up the disagreements concerning religion in terms of a Manichean struggle between the forces of God and "atheistic secularists", the more troops they can summon to the defence of conservative Christianity.

The media generally made a great deal of Christians protesting outside parliament against the passage of anti-discrimination legislation through the Lords. And it was easy to be left with the misleading impression that all Christians oppose it. Not a bit of it. As the editorial in this week's Church Times, effectively the Church of England's trade paper, rightly complains, the "broad support for the Equality Act from the Church of England and the Board of Deputies of British Jews has been drowned out by a small group of conservative Christians". It goes on to point out that "mainstream Churches do not share the views of the protesters, and the majority of Christians will have no truck with discrimination on grounds of this kind". And thank God for that.·

(Dr Giles Fraser is the vicar of Putney and a lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford )
giles.fraser@btinternet.com

The Church Can Live With Homosexual Sinners the Way it Lives With Other Kinds of Sinners

The Church Can Live With Homosexual Sinners The Way It Lives With Other Kinds Of Sinners
Argues William Weston, a sociology professor and moderate Democrat: "The Bible says homosexual practice is a sin. On this the conservatives are right. But some conservatives go way overboard in saying that it is among the worst of sins. I think homosexuality is a sin like divorce, not a sin like sacrificing children to idols. The Bible strongly condemns divorce, and Jesus does so most of all. The Presbyterian Church had a significant debate about how to deal with the biblical condemnation of divorce, and changed its position in the middle of the last century. Divorce is no longer a bar to being a minister or elder.The church did not change its teaching that divorce is a sin. Each divorce is a tragedy, to be regretted and repented of. But sometimes, the church concluded, it is the least-bad option available to a person or a couple. They are enjoined to repent, and sin no more. They may even remarry in the church, and serve in all its offices. By making this pastoral accommodation to divorce, the church is not saying that divorce is a private matter, or just another lifestyle choice that is as good as any other. Some people may even be born with very difficult personalities, but I have never heard the argument that such people have a natural inclination to divorce, and therefore ought to act on their inclination. I believe the church could accommodate homosexual practice in the same way that it has accommodated divorce, without abandoning its standards. The church should promote and develop ways to help people work around their inclination to homosexual practice, just as the church promotes and develops many pastoral strategies to help people work around their inclination to divorce. The successful ministries that help people deal with their homosexual inclinations don't try to change peoples' orientations so much as help them to work around their inclinations successfully."

Book Review: Misquoting Jesus (written by Bart Ehrman)

Misquoting Jesus
The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
By Bart D. Ehrman

Price: $24.95
On Sale: 11/1/2005
Formats: Hardcover | Trade PB

When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that had been made by earlier translators. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the Bible we use today. He frames his account with personal reflections on how his study of the Greek manuscripts made him abandon his once ultraconservative views of the Bible.

Since the advent of the printing press and the accurate reproduction of texts, most people have assumed that when they read the New Testament they are reading an exact copy of Jesus's words or Saint Paul's writings. And yet, for almost fifteen hundred years these manuscripts were hand copied by scribes who were deeply influenced by the cultural, theological, and political disputes of their day. Both mistakes and intentional changes abound in the surviving manuscripts, making the original words difficult to reconstruct. For the first time, Ehrman reveals where and why these changes were made and how scholars go about reconstructing the original words of the New Testament as closely as possible.

Ehrman makes the provocative case that many of our cherished biblical stories and widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself stem from both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes -- alterations that dramatically affected all subsequent versions of the Bible.

About the Author:
Bart D. Ehrman chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is an authority on the history of the New Testament, the early church, and the life of Jesus. He has taped several highly popular lecture series for the Teaching Company and is the author of Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew and Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament. He lives in Durham, North Carolina.

Well worth a read, IMO.

PAT