Wow, That's a First!

The title of this article caught my eye - the news media are foregrounding all Bishop's, and by extension, all Christian's, sexuality. Imagine "heterosexual President" or "heterosexual news anchor" as a headline. No? Because the sexuality issue is for grabs in the reporting of Chrsitianity. Are Christians that obsessed with sex, or just the mainstream meadia?

"Heterosexual Elected Episcopal Bishop of Calif"--headline, Reuters,
May 6

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The Episcopal Diocese of California on Saturday
avoided widening a rift over gays in the global Anglican Communion by electing a
heterosexual man as its next bishop.

More than 1,000 clergy and laypeople packed Grace Cathedral in San
Francisco's tony Nob Hill neighborhood to elect the Rt. Rev. Mark Andrus as
successor to longtime Bishop William Swing, who is retiring after 27
years.

Two openly gay men and one lesbian were among the seven candidates on
the ballot.
No gay or lesbian cleric has been elected bishop since the
consecration of Eugene Robinson in 2003 as bishop of New Hampshire threw the
U.S. church and the worldwide family of 77 million Anglicans into turmoil.

"Your vote today remains a vote for inclusion and communion -- of gay
and lesbian people in their full lives as single or partnered people, of women,
of all ethnic minorities, and all people," Andrus said by telephone over the
cathedral's public address system to members after being told of his election.
"My commitment to Jesus Christ's own mission of inclusion is resolute."

Rev. Andrus of Alabama was elected with 72 percent of the clergy vote
and 55 percent of the lay vote. The Rev. Canon Eugene Sutton of Washington,
D.C., who is also heterosexual, came in second, with 13 percent of the clergy
vote and 33 percent of the lay vote.

and so on...

Here's a comment from the (newly elected) Bishop himself on EpiscoLesGay issues:

An example of a conflict situation is my stance in the Diocese of Alabama
following the 2003 General Convention. In my public addresses during the months
following the Convention I sought to speak in such a way that evoked a sense of
our basic relatedness despite differences in position on the issues around human
sexuality. I admitted that while the decisions of the General Convention were
grounded in prayer and in an understanding of the scriptures, the possibility
was certainly there that we had erred. I expressed a conviction that full truth
remains beyond us, both on this and many other issues, and that an attitude of
non-judging would help us move toward that truth. Both the diocesan bishop and I
were careful to let the diocese know that despite our differences on the issues,
we were and are united in Christ, and this despite some efforts to separate us.
I called the diocese to engagement in mission, while emphasizing that the
inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the full life of the Church is a matter
of justice, and not a trivial matter. I took care to maintain my spiritual life
in the face of controversy and hostility. With another general convention
nearing, I believe that my approach, as well as that of most of the laity and
clergy of the diocese has moved us forward to a healthier more integrated
understanding of what it means to be a Christian community. Source

Note the criteria on which the issue is evaluated:

1. People who disagree over the "gay" issue are basically related (he doesn't say how)

2. Decisions grounded in prayer and in "an understanding" of Scripture, include the "possibility was certainly there" (whatever that means) of error - so how confident can be be in our Chrsitain decsions at a personal or concillar level?

3. He is convicted (a grounds for truth, perhaps?) that "the full truth remains beyond us". Two points:

a) His basis for truth (personal conviction) trumps the possibility of other truths

b) "full truth" - does this mean full in the sense of "sufficient" or "exhaustive"? Surely we can know something sufficiently - otherwise the Bishops' own personaly 'conviction' would not be admitted. Exhaustively, however, impies a different category of knowledge altogether - he is asking the impossible, and not getting it, offers it as (certain!) proof that certainty on this matter is unattainable. In other words, he is sure is opponents are wrong. But doesn't this contradict the principle of non-judging (4)

4. Non-judging will help us move towards the truth - but what about the "conviction" above? If we are not going to differentiate "truth" from "non-truth" (ie make a judgement call), how on earth otherwise are we supposed to tell the difference? And I don't think he means "non-judging" as in "non-homophobic discriminatory bigot".

5. People with differences on major doctrinal issues (as this is, striking at theological anthropology like nothing else of late) are united in Christ. What are the criteria for discovering who is "united in Christ"? Oh, yeah, can't tell, becuase we're busy being non-judging(!)

6. There are efforts to separate the pro-gay and anti-gay lobby

7. Inclusion of gay/lesbians is a matter of justice - note the logic:

inclusion = justice, justice = inclusion

therefore

exclusion = injustice, injustice = exclusion

We now have the foundation for including everything under the name of justice. Is this what justice really means? It is certainly not a trivial matter, which by the way, is not the opposite of justice, nor what his opponents are advocating. This is a "straw man" indeed.

8. Disputants must maintain their "spiritual life" - is this by prayer and reading of Scripture? But this invites the "possibility [that] was certainly there" of error! Any personal convictions about that one? They seem to be the order of the day in terms of truth claims.

9. There are approaches that "move forward to be more healthier and integrated". Then there must be apparoches that are "unhealthy" and "fragmented". Once, homosexuality was considered akin to a mental illness, and hence being "gay" meant being "sick". Once, Western society regarded homosexuals as "sick" as in "perverse". Now, those who hold views at variance with the good Bishop are the "sick" ones. I am not saying that this is right. Only that a contradiction is emerging.

How long will it be until the "unreconstructed" views of those who disagree with the Bishop are completely marginalised? Where is the "non-judging" now?