The Episcopal diocese of Los Angeles recently elected a partnered lesbian to the position of suffragen (assistant) bishop, spitting in the face of the worldwide Anglican communion, who had asked for, "gracious restraint" in the matter of the blessing of same-sex unions and the election of openly gay people to positions of church leadership.
The bishop of Los Angeles, J. Jon Bruno obviously approves.
As we approach the nativity of Christ, we need to remember the admonition of the angels to the shepherds: “Be not afraid.”
The Episcopal Church, a member of the Anglican Communion, for more than the past 30 years has been working on gradual, full incorporation of gay and lesbian people. We have worked to be people of gracious restraint for all these years and have now come to a place in our lives that is normal evolutionary change which compels us to move from tolerance to full inclusion.
As with racial and cultural divides, we can look to the great words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who calls us not to fall prey to the insidious drug of gradualism. Indeed, as he said in his speech titled “I Have a Dream”: “This is no time ... to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism .... Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.”
One of the comments decries the invoking of Christ's Nativity in connection with their actions. But it seems to me that naming Christ's name at all in the blessing of sinful behaviour is even worse. I believe that anyone who does so, invoking our Saviour's name to justify sin, heaps judgement after judgement upon his own head. Jesus, they will claim, said nothing about homosexuality. Yes, but he did have lots to say about sesxual immorality, and that, in the context of first-century Judaism, would have included every sexual berhaviour conemned in the Mosaic law, which definitely includes homosexual sexual acts.
Equally (well, maybe not equally) abhorent, is the appeal to Dr Martin Luther King's fight for racial equality. Frankly, these people insult the good doctor, if not the entire civil rights movement, by trying to equate race, over which one has no control, with sexual behavioural choices. I will not argue the point about whether homosexuality is genetic, cultural or environmental. That has not been established, nor is it relevant to the issue. It's not about orientation, it's about actions, behavioural choices. It's not about desires; it's about acting on them.
To put the most generous face on it, these people may be sincere, but they are certainly, at the very least, misguided. The least generous face would be to call them evil. But, as my blogging friend David puts it, they are killing their church for the sake of a very small minority of the population.
And, may I say, a very selfish minority, if they are so willing to see the death, or at least the decline into irrelevance, of an entire formerly great denomination so that they can engage in the sexual activity of their choice.