November 12, 2003

The Missing Commandment

I finally understand how the Episcopal Church was able to purport to consecrate Gene Robinson as a bishop. They only have Nine Commandments.

I hate to repeat myself, but my big problem with the purported consecration is not that Gene Robinson finds himself, for whatever reason, sexually attracted to men. The undisputed facts are that Mr Robinson is openly involved in a sexual relationship outside the bonds of holy matrimony. That there would be your violation of the Seventh Commandment (unless you are Roman Catholic, in which case it would be the Sixth Commandment, as RCs number them differently to nonetheless reach a total of Ten).

That is not to suggest that most of us have not violated said Seventh Commandment from time to time, especially in light of the full meaning of it as expounded by Christ. It is to suggest that anyone who is openly violating it as a permanent public arrangement, even expressing that such behaviour is not only righteous, but holy and good and ordained by God, should not be wearing a mitre, not to mention a collar.

I have said all that before, but the thought that I want to add is that I doubt even the Episcopal Church would purport to consecrate someone who was openly a thief. Again, not someone who succumbed to temptation once and who as a child or teenager nicked something from a shop, but someone who stole regularly from Church funds. They probably wouldn't give a crozier to a serial killer. They probably wouldn't even elevate someone who went around cursing his parents or who had a habit of committing perjury. Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth Commandments -- apparently no problem. But the Seventh doesn't matter, or at best we can give it a completely different meaning. Such a meaning would have to be so completely different as to be no meaning at all.

I have used the word "purported" not because of anything to do with Robinson, but rather to say there has been a consecration implies that the Holy Spirit has actually done something. Having left the Faith behind, not to mention valid Apostolic Succession, I have no grounds for supporting the idea that the Holy Spirit is involved in the sacramental rites of the Episcopal Church.

Posted by david at November 12, 2003 12:01 AM | TrackBack

It is hard to resist the comment of, "I'm glad i'm not Anglican any more." The relief is stunning. No more scandal over what the faith is and isn't. No more worrying about finding a traditional parish when i travel. At the same time i am sad for so many hanging on as tightly as i probably was, and for what? It is all still very frustrating to view from a distance.

Posted by: aaron at November 12, 2003 07:17 PM