Where’s +Waldo on Same Sex Blessings?

If you go to the link to Bishop Waldo’s letter, and scroll down a bit, you will see the comment I left last week (hopefully it is not too arrogant to quote myself):

Bishop Waldo,

I find some of what you write to be quite confusing, and would hope you could clarify your statement. Specifically, you state:
“I voted “no” at General Convention because these questions ask those who would change the Church’s teachings to respect and respond to the received tradition, not with dismissiveness, but with rigor, discipline, respect and love.”

That is to say (if I understand you correctly), you voted to withhold authorization of the rite for same sex blessing for the entire Episcopal Church, because the theological support offered to date for such a change in teaching is inadequate.

However, just a few paragraphs later, you say:
“I will appoint a task force by the end of August to articulate theologically and practically—in much the way Bishop Doyle of Texas has done—the boundaries within which we might live together, including congregations that will have opened their doors to same-sex blessings…”

That is to say, you are anticipating that you will authorize some parishes to perform the rite even before the task force finishes its work (no parish may “open their doors” to SSBs without your consent, and “will have” indicates this will happen prior to the report of the task force), although the theological underpinnings provided by the Episcopal Church remain inadequate.

These two positions (to vote “no” because the theology backing the idea is inadequate, but to allow anyway, without regard to the theology being inadequate) is paradoxical, and the paradox is not resolved within your letter.

Please understand, I am not a member of your diocese, your decision impacts me only in that some of my friends are in your diocese. And, of course, should you proceed, we will all be impacted by the further damage done to the Anglican Communion.

To date, I have received no response or clarification.  I think that the issue goes beyond rhetorical questions he asks, and the heart of the matter is that the bishop is indeed trying to have his cake and eat it too.  If TEC has not done sufficient theological work to earn passage of the measure, then it is impossible that it has done sufficient theological work to all implementation of the measure.  It seems quite apparent that the only reason the bishop voted against it was to appease conservatives in his diocese.  His letter appears to make clear he will now make amends with his liberal supporters by forcing the measure he voted against upon his diocese.

TJM excellent observation. And if I may offer a simple explanation: He was for SSB before he was against it - and welcomes the opportunity to be for it again if the spirit moves in that direction, if you get his drift (no pun intended).

Very impressive tj, and it gives practical support to our faithful brothers and sisters in Dio USC.

Just a reminder that Waldo came from Minnesota whose support for SSBs has been long-standing and loud.  Ask Waldo how he voted there.  He was and has always been for SSBs and the “full-inclusion” meme.  He’s simply looking for a way to cover his rear so he can appear “moderate” when he’s anything but.  He knows this could implode the diocese.

This is simply an exercise in word-smithing to disguise his true intent.  That’s why his missive is so confused.  I remember a quote from Lawrence of Arabia to paraphrase:  A liar simply hides the truth.  A person who tells half-truths has forgotten where he put it.

Waldo’s trying to buffalo you in a big way.  Don’t let him.

Excellent query to Bishop Waldo, TJ. I am not surprised at his lack of response to you which is why I soo appreciate +Mark Lawrence’s clear and steadfast stance on this.  I know it has been said a lot but- Let your yes be yes and your no be no- is always appropriate. Hey, if you are for SSB’s then just say so and let the consequences happen. Might as well be honest about it.

Actually, given that I do more or less agree with Bill2 on the intentional obfuscation in the bishop’s letter, I do give Waldo points for letting my comment through moderation.

Note how TEC has now redefined the word “moderate.”  A moderate bishop is now one who allows SSBs in the diocese, but does not require parishes to host them.

Good point, TJ. Moderate just keeps getting redefined! I wonder what the next 3 years will bring in redefining Episcopagan terms.

This is not a time to be lukewarm. Bp. Waldo needs to be decisive, one way or the other, so that laity and clergy in his diocese can also make decisions.

In this state, a parish can withdraw from the diocese.

Next door in Georgia, Bp. Benhase is also lukewarm, albeit in a more mysterious way.

Regarding implementation of SSBs in his Disintegrity-infested diocese, he writes, “Frankly, I do not know.” (Gen 4:9; Luke 22:57; Mark 11:33; and many other places in Holy Scripture)

See;
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs081/1103630271834/archive/1110453326452.html

Like the chief priests, scribes, and elders of Mark 11, and like Cain, I suspect that Bps. Waldo and Benhase both know. Gentlemen, choose sides.

Many have said that the sin of homosexuality is in the sexual act itself. How, exactly, is that so, when those same acts are common in heterosexual Christian marriages? A theology of complementarity—that is, the Bible’s description of male-female complementarity—by itself, does not answer this question.

With all due respect to Waldo, how many marriages try to replicate the male-male sex act?  That’s the worst straw-man construction ever.

I more or less follow the RC logic that those acts, when intended to lead to natural relations between a husband and wife are not sinful, but as a replacement to the normal act represent something not intended by God.

Waldo’s either not very bright or intentionally trying to muddy the waters.  I tend to think he’s no Thomas Aquinas, but he’s no Larry the Cable Guy either.  I think he’s clearly setting up the traditional argument to fail, and clumsily at that.

Bishop Waldo claims to know where he is, and that is in the position of the “radical centrist.” I guess this makes him a “centroid.”

I think this means that he wants to keep liberals and conservatives (there go those terms again) together no matter what their differences. In order to do so, he himself needs to appear impartial.

The fact is, he has revealed his partiality by expressing his desire to allow ssbs. All it will take is for a whole parish to come up with some semiplausible theological statement (like copying and pasting Bishop Doyle’s) and a rationale that allowing a ssb in their parish will somehow unify them and others in the diocese for Bishop Waldo to carve that parish out as a safe haven or niche parish in the diocese.

A false unity will be the result of his radical centrist approach. The wolves will be penned with the sheep, tares will be sown amongst the wheat. This is the inevitable outcome for all dioceses that elect a false shepherd to the position of bishop.

Many have said that the sin of homosexuality is in the sexual act itself. How, exactly, is that so, when those same acts are common in heterosexual Christian marriages?

Glad you asked that question, bishop.  Allow me, as a matter of anthropological interest, quote the position we dinosaurs in the Roman Catholic church hold, according to the Catechism (I know, how quaint, we still have a book of rules and reasons!)  Emphases in the following mine:

<blockquote>The openness to fertility

1652 “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [He] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

1653 The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children. In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.

1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

The fecundity of marriage

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.”

Such a pity we’re not permitted to follow the dominant culture in encouraging heterosexual sodomy as a way to spice up our love lives, isn’t it!

Bishop Doyle’s is no theological treatise.  It is yet another attempt to hynotize us by repeating over and over and over - Unity, Unity, Unity.

Only time will tell if he has taught his diocese to quack like a duck.

To posit a centrist position interposed between biblical authority/christian teaching on one hand, and worldly norms/modern ethics on the other, is simply to depart from biblical authority/christian teaching. 

The bishop asks questions of those in his diocese holding to the traditional understanding - revealing that he believes that biblical authority/christian teaching are unconvincing on their own.

Of course, the burden for any such change always lies with the innovators, and the burden should include seeking to convince the greater catholic body.  In the face of overwhelming biblical authority - this is a lost cause. 

Thus, the bishop abandons that principle and fabricates a hypothetical middle ground, because all appearances are that his heart lies with the rejection of biblical authority/christian teaching. 

The whole framework of his approach is sufficient disclosure.  The rest is a matter of cover, appearance, procedure, and protection of donor base.

Jackie:

A word to all who elect to remain on the side of Biblical Authority.  Are you providing a safe haven for those who are experiencing unwanted same sex attraction or has the constant din of the activist kept your diocese or your parish from being a safe shelter for them?

What are you trying to do, start something? 

The Church as a place of refuge for repentant sinners, no matter who they are, while the wolves are kept from the door.

Imagine that!

Where is +Waldo on same sex blessings?  Ummm. the same place he has always been? It is unfortunate that he is playing the old obfuscation game of “unity trumps clarity”  for what reason ...... to appease some liberals? Guess those Christians that are part of your flock just don’t matter.  sigh. How unfortunate for the Diocese of Upper SC to have him as their bishop.

What are you trying to do, start something? 

Who me? 

Perish the thought.

I’ve often wondered how MSM “journalists” can be said to be objective when 90% of them vote Democratic which means they generally accept the line of the left as “true” and the right as false so there’s always the implicit assumptions about the economy, social issues, etc. that the Dems tend to be more right than wrong and the Republicans are always more wrong than right.

Given how Waldo has framed this and where he came from (Minnesota), that those who oppose the GLBTQXYZ agenda are bigots, haters, back-woods knuckle-draggers, snake-handling Bible thumpers, etc., how can he give the traditional view of marriage a fair shot?  This seems as though it will degenerate into a straw-man destruction contest quite quickly.  I couldn’t explain the GLBTQXYZ rationale for SSBs within a “church” fairly.  I think it’s a load of bull and they aren’t likely to make much head-way with me, but I’d never presume to speak for them. 

The cake is baked.  Waldo’s just looking for the frosting.