Which foxhole to die in?
In his comments to the post “Are we wrong?” Moderate states, “And I often wonder, as a priest I know has said, if homosexuality is the wrong foxhole to die in, in the larger conflict with relativism/pluralism.”
I would concur completely. This has been my opinion since the Righter (non)Trial in the ‘90s. I always thought that those who brought changes against Bishop Righter chose both the wrong target and the wrong issue. If there were to be a trial it should have been involving a different bishop from a mid-Atlantic state for out and out heresy.
That being said, a few comments are in order.
Soldiers don’t get to choose the front they have to defend. I am certain that the 101st Airborne would have preferred to defend Einhoven rather than Bastogne. And Lee did not wish to have to defend the line near the Hagerstown Pike and the Dunker Church. The proper front was lost probably when Jim Pike got a mild slap of the hand in the late ‘60s. (This has been Philip Turner’s point.)
I recall that Churchill called WWII an “unnecessary war,” not in the sense that it should not have been fought, but that Hitler should have been confronted long before September 1939. Similarly, we are at this point because we did not adequately defend the faith earlier. This is an unnecessary battle in that sense.
The shame of having to defend this front (and I mean “shame” in the strongest possible senses here, not just “unfortunate”) is also expressed by Moderate earlier in his comment: “However the central question is a bit hard for me to deny, and it is one I wrestle with, knowing as I do a few faithful GLBT members of the church (well GL at least). Their position is hard to deny, and I do find myself wondering if I am wrong in denying it.” The shame is that this current presenting issue hit a certain segment of our church and society in such a personal way. I remember having to tell a woman that I could not perform or support her union with her partner. She was new to the congregation and she came to me with vulnerability and hope. It was deeply disappointing for her when I said I could not. The further background of the current crisis in the church placed this encounter within a larger context where we were players in a global drama.
Had we faced the theological crisis earlier, might have we avoided the pain of such encounters? Who can know? But certainly arriving at this juncture has foreclosed a certain level of pastoral connection that might otherwise been possible if the situation had not become so focused upon an issue that is so very personal.
I would concur completely. This has been my opinion since the Righter (non)Trial in the ‘90s. I always thought that those who brought changes against Bishop Righter chose both the wrong target and the wrong issue. If there were to be a trial it should have been involving a different bishop from a mid-Atlantic state for out and out heresy.
That being said, a few comments are in order.
Soldiers don’t get to choose the front they have to defend. I am certain that the 101st Airborne would have preferred to defend Einhoven rather than Bastogne. And Lee did not wish to have to defend the line near the Hagerstown Pike and the Dunker Church. The proper front was lost probably when Jim Pike got a mild slap of the hand in the late ‘60s. (This has been Philip Turner’s point.)
I recall that Churchill called WWII an “unnecessary war,” not in the sense that it should not have been fought, but that Hitler should have been confronted long before September 1939. Similarly, we are at this point because we did not adequately defend the faith earlier. This is an unnecessary battle in that sense.
The shame of having to defend this front (and I mean “shame” in the strongest possible senses here, not just “unfortunate”) is also expressed by Moderate earlier in his comment: “However the central question is a bit hard for me to deny, and it is one I wrestle with, knowing as I do a few faithful GLBT members of the church (well GL at least). Their position is hard to deny, and I do find myself wondering if I am wrong in denying it.” The shame is that this current presenting issue hit a certain segment of our church and society in such a personal way. I remember having to tell a woman that I could not perform or support her union with her partner. She was new to the congregation and she came to me with vulnerability and hope. It was deeply disappointing for her when I said I could not. The further background of the current crisis in the church placed this encounter within a larger context where we were players in a global drama.
Had we faced the theological crisis earlier, might have we avoided the pain of such encounters? Who can know? But certainly arriving at this juncture has foreclosed a certain level of pastoral connection that might otherwise been possible if the situation had not become so focused upon an issue that is so very personal.
posted by peregrinator at 8:21 AM
1 Comments:
Sorry, I lost my hotspot.
Of course my quote intended to question whether or not it is possible to draw the line after homosexuality somewhere. As I said I know at least two folks who are orthodox in every respect but happen to be gay. Both are desperately seeking a way to reconcile their beliefs (even beliefs on the sanctity of traditional marriage and its relation to the Christ's love for the Church) with their sexual orientation. I would love to find such a reconciliation, but cannot, leaving my friends and me in a difficult spot.
Your comment suggests that we would be in a far healthier spot if we were firm and had long been firm in our theology in order to firmly approach these friends in love to say "no, there is no reconciliation possible except for repentance". Perhaps this is how it is for the Catholics. Nevertheless we are left in the spot we are, groping to find an answer. What is our pastoral response to be then, given the situation in which we find ourselves?
Your comment also begs the question, where should the line have been drawn? There are many abroad in the land who argue that our current situation was an inevitable conclusion to such matters as the BCP revision, women's ordination, and the relaxation of rules on remarriage after divorce. Many in the continuing churches smugly point out that the division should have come long ago and that the ACN folks are too late to the game and have too many internal contradictions. How far back should the line have been drawn?
How far are we to regress to regain our sanctity? Is regression even possible at this point? Had the line been drawn at Pike and we were not in this global drama would that young woman have approached you at all?
Post a Comment
<< Home