The Daily O has never been one to cover religion to any useful degree. Over the years, the newspaper’s religion coverage has dwindled from a full page of articles and advertising in the Saturday newspaper to a smattering of calendar listings and wire-service copy. [Only a week ago, the “news hole” measured about 12 column inches.] There’s the occasional feature about a local religious figure or political event involving local religious organizations. As a “churchman” himself, WWP can attest that most established churches and religious leaders have simply given up on The O to pay any attention to them, unless of course, there’s a scandal. Otherwise, the newspaper’s coverage suffers from being inconsistent and incomplete – and like the case of the recent consecration of the new bishop of the Oregon Episcopal diocese – late in extreme.
Imagine Worldwide Pablo’s surprise to open The O yesterday to find it has a new religion columnist: He’s none other than David Reinhard. As astute readers know, Reinhard is the masthead’s “right of center” editorialist, brought in some years ago to bring more “balance” to the paper’s opinion section (not that its dull record of bland editorializing could possibly be any grayer, or more conservative, than it already was … but WWP digresses).
The O’s new religion editor weighed in Thursday on the election and consecration of V. Gene Robinson as bishop of the New Hampshire diocese of the Episcopal Church. Robinson, of course, is the first openly gay person to be made a bishop in the church, and this news does not settle well with Brother Reinhard. But judging from his maiden foray into religion-reporting, it's seems clear Reinhard isn't up to the task of reporting religion. In fact, it seems the Blowhard on Broadway might have, in fact, flunked catechism.
According to the sancto-scribe, the consecration of Bishop Robinson:
1. Is the result of a "gay crusade" or a "homosexual cause."
2. Sets aside 2000 years of teaching" and is "contrary to the historic faith and order of the one holy catholic and apostolic church."
3. Discerns God’s will as an act of arrogance and self-will, as an act of "pride."
4. Heads the church off into new territory, one of man-made scripture.
5. Will split the church.
Let's take these one at a time:
1. To David Reinhard, the incredulous can only ask: Have you stepped inside an Episcopal church lately? Or, for that matter, any church? Care to guess what the percentage of modern-day U.S. church population is not gay? [Memo to Dave: Is your church more than 1 percent gay? If so, please let WWP know. He'd love to send swarms of homosexuals to your apparently wonderful and welcoming congregation.] Worldwide Pablo might be going out on a limb here, but he ventures to guess that the straight church population is somewhere in the neighborhood of, oh, 98 or 99 percent. And here's why: People like you, David, have succeeded in driving gays away from church, in droves, for years – for decades, in fact – based upon the ever-successful and self-fulfilling dogma that requires exclusion, even divisiveness, in order to "grow in Christ's image" and to "succeed." In fact, at WWP's rather progressive Protestant church, despite its best efforts, it can only manage to muster a dozen or so gays and lesbians in regular attendance – and that's in a 1,000-member congregation that's tried for a decade or longer to welcome gays.
Looking to the Episcopal churches and the conferences that elected and confirmed Robinson, the conclusion is the same: It's straights – caring, open-minded and welcoming heterosexuals – who overwhelmingly are calling upon the church to welcome gays into the fold. In fact, that's one of the odd turns of this story: A mostly white, affluent and heterosexual denomination has extended a welcome to people that it doesn't really already have, and which does so at great risk and cost. [Oh, and by the way, Dave: Does that sound like anyone you might know from the New Testament?]
2. Just what is "the historic faith and order of the one holy catholic and apostolic church"? Dave, are you really suggesting this ideal amounts only to "the way it's always been done"? Moreover, are you equally as upset about the two millennia of disunity among Christians as you are about the recent, alleged discord occasioned by Robinson's consecration? Are you unaware that the "bishops" and leaders of essentially all Protestant denominations, save Episcopalians (and some would argue, Lutherans), are not "apostolic"? [Dave: This is basic stuff. Did you miss – or skip – this class?]
3. Here's Another News Flash, Dave: Discerning the will of God is, has been, and forever will be, a lone, individual and sacredly personal act. Guess what? You, of all people, like everyone else in Creation, aren't invited into anyone else's discernment. Discernment, as Paul writes, is a gift of the Spirit, and the Spirit speaks to us alone, individually (and yet, at once, which is a conundrum, to be sure). You speak of Robinson's discernment as some kind of communal act in which he spites others, and yet which invites public opprobrium. You seem upset that you weren't consulted or involved in Robinson's discernment of the Spirit (displaying ignorance of the fairly appointed and agreed-upon republican form of government that elected and confirmed the election process). Nevertheless: This is how the Spirit gently moves, Dave. You might call this intensely personal act a "Sin of Pride." But know this: Those in the pews beside you are apt to say, How dare you?.
Oh, and by the way: In the absence of declaring your own religious bone fides, how can you dare to pass judgment on others, perhaps even outside your own religious tradition?
4. So, the church is headed off into new territory. So what? You claim that the Episcopal Church is writing its own "scripture," but yet, isn't that the same fakey charge that liberals accuse more conservative congregations of, say, New Hope Church? [And make no mistake, they do do it, by the way.].
What makes this so awful is your utter ignorance of Episcopal belief and faith formation – and it's here that WWP suspects you cannot be an Episcopalian (or one who successfully passed through a catechism class): Episcopalians teach that God's truth is based on scripture, yes – but also on tradition and reason. [How could you have failed to know this?]
Yes, tradition tells us that there is an historic teaching about certain, oppressive homosexual acts. [And please don’t bother to tell WWP otherwise unless you've managed to read the original Greek version first, which he doubts you've ever deigned to do]. And reason tells us that Paul could not have possibly have known about the existence of homosexual orientation (as opposed to reality of certain same-sex sexual acts known to exist in Paul's time). Dave: You have a brain, right? Here's a clue: God wants you to use it. For the sake of your readers, test it out on this subject, even if only once.
5. Will Bishop Robinson's consecration split the church? Well, who cares? Is that really the point? [And Dave: If you're not an Episcopalian, why do you care? And if you are: why don't you say so?] In any event, if it's only church numbers and denominational rankings that we are counting, then truly we have lost our way. Hard to imagine the Prince of Peace tallying rosters, if you catch WWP's drift.
Anyway, the Christian church is not whole, and hasn't been for centuries, and it's barely catholic at any time or place. Fact is, churches split all the time, and sometimes for the better. [In WWP's own tradition, the Methodists, the famous splits of the 19th century actually led to a stronger and larger church later, and allowed a century of discernment that led to the greater universal Methodist church that exists worldwide today.] Moreover, all of Bishop Robinson's concern and comments thus far has been directed at welcoming of everyone – all those would agree, and all those who would disagree, with his election. Contrast that, if you will, with those who oppose the bishop's election: Who really is dividing the church? Just who are the schismatics? In the U.S., is it the majority of those who agree with the consecration and who are staying? Or the vocal minority that threatens to storm off in an American Anglican hissyfit?
Here's the bottom line: A church not caught up in breaking barriers is no church at all. It’s a country club, one that is fixed on maintaining the order as it exists now and has always existed, one that draws the lines of inclusion exactly as they existed before, one that attends to its own needs instead of others, and which is resistant to the ever-evolving, always challenging call of God.
To love that church above all things, a church that loves itself and its ways – well, that defies just about everything our Gracious Master asked us to to do, doesn’t it?
There’s a name for that church, for that insular way, Dave. It’ called the sin of … idolatry.
[WWP note: Thanks to Worldwide Rob (an actual live and breathing Episcopalian, by the way), who kindly helped WWP write, edit and think through this post, which took more than the customary time for posting. We both think it was worth the wait.]
Well written. Well said.
Posted by: Dalene | Saturday, November 15, 2003 at 10:23 AM