15 July 2009

+Durham cannot read the English Language

Apparently, Rowan Williams is not the only English bishop who has the inability to read the English language - or at ease the American version of the English language. The Rt. Rev'd Thomas Wright is a true scholar so it's really difficult he could be so intentionally ignorant.

But what can one expect from a man who thinks America is the modern Caesar?
He argues that America in particular and the West in general need to be regarded as exercising a form of economic and political ‘imperial’ power, casting America in the position of Caesar relative to the claims of Christ.
And what are the "claims of Christ?" Calvinism, of course, because he is a Calvinist:
Wright was very much operating within the context of theologically Reformed Anglican evangelicalism and he speaks of the way in which he regarded any books not published by very conservative evangelical publishers as suspect.
Wright has written an opinion in the Times wherein he begins
In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States has voted decisively to allow in principle the appointment, to all orders of ministry, of persons in active same-sex relationships. This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion...
He then prattles on about how TEC has chosen to ignore the moratorium and the Windsor recommendations (and that is exactly what they are).

But, he is absolutely silent about border crossings and the shenanigans of the so-called global south who have never acknowledged any part of the "Windsor Report" as existing except, of course, the "moratorium."
Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart."
Really? What about that statement from the "unanimous" primates about "no border crossing?" Wouldn't that be Windsor language that they have chosen to walk apart? Oh, sorry, as a Calvinist, is in sympathy with the schismatic band of thieves, it's best to ignore that "walking apart."

The deputies and bishops of The Episcopal Church did now exactly what they were doing. They were saying to a significant portion of both this church and the world: "The Episcopal Church: where all God's children are welcomed." The deputies also knew exactly what they were not doing. That was made clear by the statement by the presiding bishop:
"I do not believe D025 repudiates the moratorium -- 'exercising restraint' continues.
We have not rejected "the pathway to the future." That pathway was rejected long ago by border crossing Calvinistic wolves in episcopal vestments.

This is, I suppose, the most interesting part of his diatribe
The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire”. [Emphasis mine]
Justice doesn't mean treating everyone the same way? It's a good thing Jesus didn't know about that. Too bad Wright wasn't there to tell Jesus he was dead wrong. (That's such a Calvinist trait, you know.)

Wright is correct about one thing; no one has the right to be ordained. But, all have he right to access the process whereby discernment will work. To deny any one or any group of people access to the process is to limit God by stating God cannot use anyone whom he chooses - and that you know better than God knows. That, Your Grace, is pure unmitigated arrogance.

But that has always been the problem with the Calvinist schismatics - arrogance and pride.

Your name may be Wright, but you're as wrong as Corrigan.