Time for some question-and-answer about the general state of the Episcopal Church:
A: So am I.
Q: Isn’t this a lot of trouble to go to over one bishop?
A: If it were only one! Unfortunately, the problems in ECUSA run far deeper than V. Gene Robinson, and would still be there if Bishop Robinson were to resign or even to be deposed as a bishop.
Q: Like what?
A: “Minor” things like denial of the authority of the Bible, denial of the resurrection of Jesus, and denial of His Lordship and uniqueness, and even worhip of other gods.
Q: Those are pretty negative things to say. Shouldn’t you be staying positive?
A: OK, I’m positive that the bishops of ECUSA have, as a whole, shown themselves to be party to all of the above.
Q: You’re just bitter about Gene Robinson’s appointment at GC2003.
A: Actually, Robinson’s approval as bishop (bad enough as that was) wasn’t the worst thing to come out of that general convention. Resolution B001 was.
Q: Resolution what?
A: Resolution B001. It called for reaffirming that the ECUSA holds that Scripture is still authoritative (as stated in the Articles of Religion) and that the statements in the Book of Common Prayer outlining what we believe as Episcopalians to be fundamental to the Faith (“the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886, 1888”) are still held to be true.
Q: That sounds like it ought to be non-controversial. What’s your problem with that?
A: It was voted down, by a majority of bishops (66-84, 8 abstensions, to be exact).
Q: Oh. So what exactly does ECUSA believe now?
A: Good question. I would guess it depends on a working majority of General Convention votes, but it’s hard to tell.
Q: But isn’t the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion big enough to contain these differences?
A: No Church is big enough to be both Christian and non-Christian.
Q: Whoa! Who are you to judge anyone else’s faith?
A: Who do I have to be? Look, it’s a simple matter of truth in labelling: someone can be a very nice person, but if their religion doesn’t believe the Bible is authoritative, revealed Scripture, that Jesus died for our sins and is raised from the dead, or hold to the historic Creeds of the Church, I don’t see how it can in any honest sense be called “Christian.” Maybe “Deist” or “Unitarian Universalist” or “Pagan”, but not “Christian.”
Q: Yeah, right. You say to-MAY-to, I say ta-MAH-to — this is really because you hate and fear gay people, right?
A: You’re one of those people who uses the words “listening” and “dialogue” a lot, aren’t you?