[Previous entry: "LSD used to have the same effect on people"] [Next entry: "See, Frank, it isn't just me"]
03/28/2004: "Speak for yourself, Frank"
Frank Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, has written a letter to a commission of the Anglican Communion. In this letter, he seeks to obfuscate explain his perspective on the continuing controversy over homosexuality in the ECUSA. There's an excellent analysis of this letter on CaNN. What I found especially interesting was this piece of historical revisionism:
Another dynamic is the role members of my own church with a particular point of view have played in shaping opinions, shall we say, since before the last Lambeth Conference. We must openly acknowledge the fact that part of the reason issues of homosexuality have so overtaken the Anglican Communion is because a number of the members of the Episcopal Church–along with individuals and groups motivated by political ideologies rather than theological convictions–have, by virtue of their connections and resources, been able to garner the consciousness of bishops around the world. Their unstinting efforts have made this issue more central to our life than the spreading of the gospel and the living of the Good News of Jesus Christ. We must ask ourselves if this preoccupation with sexuality is truly of God.
Come on, Frank, don't be coy. We all know who you're talking about. The American Anglican Council, Forward in Faith, the Network–in other words, conservative evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics. Now, since we know who you're accusing, let's look at the reality.
The reality is that it is liberals and gay rights advocates who have brought the issue up over and over and over again, seeking to wear down the opposition until they got what they wanted. Griswold's letter makes passing reference to a resolution passed in 1976 that affirmed, rightly, "that homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church." (the acceptance referred to is, I assume, of homosexual persons, not their behaviors, which aren't mentioned). ECUSA conservatives would no doubt have been happy to consider the issue settled. But no–it kept coming up over and over, as liberals sought to chip away, bit by bit, at the traditional understanding of sexuality embodied in Scripture and the tradition of the Church Catholic. It was not conservatives who kept bringing it up. It was not conservatives who were obsessed with getting the church to put its stamp of approval on behavior that nothing in revelation condoned. It was not conservatives who insisted on making this the the most important issue for the church to deal with at convention after convention. If you really want to know who has a "preoccupation with sexuality," look no farther than the folks who have decided that it was worth risking schism for the sake of their sexual agenda. Oh, and as for those driven by political ideologies rather than theology, we need look no farther than bishops like Tom Shaw of Massachusetts, who was practically the first in line to thank that state's Supreme Court for putting their stamp of approval on his ideology.
They say that a substance abuser won't seek help until he "hits bottom." Frank Griswold's addiction to ecclesiastical dishonesty is still searching for its bottom.
