Posted on 02/28/2006 1:38:06 PM PST by sionnsar
"Unscrupulous" is a strong word with which to characterize someone's conduct. It usually suggests Machiavellian plotting, the scheming of a Fu Manchu, Lucrezia Borgia, etc. But the word just means: without scruple. It means going forward without any deterring influence from other people or from other concerns or values.
This is why I would use the "unscrupulous" to describe the Diocese of California's episcopal nominating committee's slate. They have presented two gay candidates, one of whom could well win the election, without any apparent reference to the feelings of many of their fellow Episcopalians. We could well have the Columbus General Convention entirely focused not on the Windsor Report, which is its proper referred business, but on the question of another gay bishop's election being approved or not.
Why is their decision to present two gay candidates unscrupulous? Well, first, it wipes its feet on millions of dollars, literally, of airfares! Since August 2003, millions and millions of dollars have been spent on airfares to dozens and dozens – probably hundreds – of alarmed meetings all over the world. Was it all a complete waste of money? Did all those thousands of security searches, from Texas to New York to Heathrow to Belfast to Lagos to Bermuda, take place for nought? What does this decision say about "counting the cost” to the rest of the world – and specifically the "orthodox" church world? It is a colossal negation of our stewardship. What it says is, We don't care about the effect this decision has on you. Our desire, or need, to push a way forward takes no regard to the conscience, not to mention the pocketbook, of others whom the step has alarmed. No Pauline "weaker brethren" here!
We could itemize the other ways in which the California nominating committee has reflected – I expect somewhat unconsciously, or even maybe unintentionally, but hopefully not quite as indifferently as it comes across – a view of life that is selfish. It is selfish, what they have done. They have put us all, the wider church, I mean, at risk, again. We were hoping, thousands of us, that the General Convention would at least have the chance to make peace with Windsor. Now that is probably impossible. It could become all emotion and sentimentality again on the point of the "orthodox" apparently wanting to "exclude" gay clergy from their natural rights.
This is not fair.
I was talking to an English priest the other day, a once influential and liberal voice in the Church of England. He did agree how uncompromising the decision is on the part of the nominating committee in California – no quarter, really, offered there to offended sensibilities. No fair play – given the way the conversation has gone. The Americans have simply lost any view of compromise, which is concession for the greater good.
Traditional Christians within the Episcopal Church really were looking, with at least a little hope, for a thoughtful and maybe loving engagement at Columbus. The West Coast decision, should the gay candidate prevail in May, renders that hope, that little small element of hope, a fire to be snuffed out.
Regardless of whether one agrees or not with the election of a gay bishop, there is not much love in this, no solicitude I can see, no caring for "the other." The irony is that many old friends of mine on that side are writing books on inclusion, preaching sermons on reconciliation, speaking grandly of embrace – but what can they possibly make of this new Episcopal world they are creating? When they wake up in the middle of the night, I mean.
Love,
PZ
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. It was neither unconscious nor unintentional; nor was it indifferent. Though it most certainly is selfish.
Paul Zahl, in conversation with leading liberal of C of E, finds that even the liberals are shaking their heads over Diocese of California's slate of candidates for next bishop. Why are we so surprised? This hasn't been about dialogue for a good while. The ECUSA is bracing for disaster and hoping that their gay-lesbian bet will pay off.
So true. This was pointed out on several blogs I saw today, though due to the self-imposed 9 post/day limit I did not post them here. (They're in the "latest" list on the page listed in my tagline though, mixed with a bunch of other stuff.)
Is this election going to be voted on within the 120 days prior to Convention window? Or will they wait until after?
What was the resolution that was passed a while back, anyway? That no elections were to be held? Or that no consents were to be given to any elections? Or that no ordinations would be held?
I think the resolution was for no consecrations...? That doesn't seem right. I have forgotten... ah! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1363607/posts: (3/15/2005) A moratorium on consecrations until GC2006.
What are these people THINKING? They DO know better but their insistence on their WRONG, SINFUL thinking belies egos that just don't care beyond their own egocentric self-aborption.
It reminds me of those folks who think that it's OKAY to wreak vengeance on Muslims after the Muslims wreak havoc (murder) on Christians. How does one heinous crime justify another? The logic that justifies it is MORAL RELATIVISM.
I suppose the committee is CONVINCED that, in the end, it is right in nominating open-homosexuals as bishops.
How did they EVER get to that point? We all know that practicing homosexuals as bishops is/was/ always will be wrong (just as one group's murders don't justify the opposing group's murders). Was there ever any time in the Church's history where this wasn't true?
How DID they ever get to that point? THAT is what I just can't understand.
Will the ECUSA disaster be worse than what's already happened? Schism, break-aways, defections to other denominations?
What is the "gay-lesbian bet"? That Episcopalians will suddenly accept a homosexual bishop? What could be their "payoff"? No sarcasm here at all--just questions for you.
By a series of little steps down a long, slippery slope -- and noting that after each step the picture had hardly changed from the previous one, therefore it must have been okay.
I'm not sure that that's their goal -- but if it is, such a precipitous action might work the other way, by putting the CofE revisionists in a bad light.
The "ECUSA disaster" Alice Linsley refers to is from the liberals' point of view -- it is comprised of the "schism, break-aways, defections to other denominations" that will be 'complete' if their gamble does not pay off.
The win, the payoff, for the libs is they get what they want: free control of the church, as exemplified by yet another openly-practicing homosexual bishop while (most) everyone stays put in their pews and all remains business as usual.
California has the reputation for being "the land of Fruits and Nuts" - and it is living rather richly up to it with this latest move. From Swing to Ding-a Ling... that about fits. There can be no reconcilitation without repentance. As with any sin, it must first be repudiated, then forsaken. The proof of one's walk is in one's behavior as well as one's thoughts (As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.) Obviously there wasn't much thought given to the Whole State of Christ's Church when these candidates were chosen.
I'll take a minority view here and say that it is very good what California has done. They have helped clarify the choices that must be made over the next few months by parishoners, parishes, priests and bishops. If California pushes foward with this, and I personally hope that they do, there will be no hiding behind fancy words and double talk.
Thank you for your input.
Everyone, even a Catholic (ahem), can see that the schism and defections have been happening. Not everyone IS staying in his pew. Defections MUST be outnumbering baby baptisms and conversions.
So the libs will win a openly homosexual, married, with adopted/whatever children Archbishop of Canterbury, homosexual bishops, homosexual married priests, homosexual adoptions/"families" -- along with empty churches, depleted coffers, disheartened parishoners and a scattered, fragmented church with nothing in common but a history. That is the path they take now. Homosexuals comprise about 1% of the entire population. ALL THIS acrimony for 1% of the population to feel good about itself.
Maybe I'm wrong and am being just too negative. Tsk.
But I will note that it's not all by nor about the homosexuals; it would be an error to focus on this one point alone -- if anything, it's merely the latest element to appear.
And it's a little early to say for a surety where the AoC will wind up on this (I will admit I'm being more generous here than my predecessor Arlin.)
It's the liberals in general, considerably more than 1% of the population, that have driven this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.