The Questioning Christian

Iowa gay-marriage decision does a good job of explaining its constitutional reasoning

I thought the Iowa Supreme Court’s (unanimous) gay-marriage decision did a good job of explaining the constitutional analysis in understandable terms. Read especially:

• the discussion of the separation of powers starting at page 12, recapping the crucial role that courts play in protecting individual rights by moderating the raw power of majority rule;

• the summary of the standard way of analyzing constitutional equal-protection questions, starting at page 19. The opinion explains that normally the courts use a deferential ‘rational basis’ test to judge the constitutionally of legislative classifications, but that sometimes ‘strict scrutiny’ and ‘heightened’ or ‘intermediate’ scrutiny are applied in certain important cases to protect individual rights;

• the court’s application of those analytical principles to the Iowa ban on same-sex marriages, starting at page 31 and picking up steam at page 37;

• the court’s sober rejection, as insufficiently supported by evidence, of the usual proffered policy justifications for banning same-sex marriage, starting at page 51 — at pages 52-54, the court points out that the preservation of tradition for its own sake is not enough; “we must determine whether the reasons underlying that tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements.” (Emphasis by the court, citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)

• Because the U.S. and Iowa constitutions guarantee freedom of religion for all and prohibit state endorsement or enforcement of any particular religious beliefs per se, ”civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals.” Page 66 (emphasis mine).

See Varnum v. Brien, No. 07-1499 (Iowa Apr. 3, 2009).

Over-exalting Scripture is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

Thoughtful Christians must reject teachings by some in the church that exalt Scripture to the point of making an idol of its various writings. That goes, for example, for the scriptural writings about sexuality, which are in the limelight again with the opening of the Lambeth Conference.

The various scriptural writings might indeed have been God-inspired.* They can indeed be useful for teaching, correction, etc. (see 1 Tim. 3.16).   And for the sake of argument, let's assume that those writings were a complete and totally-undistorted presentation of what God had to say to us at the time.

We can't rule out that God might have something different to say to us now, at a later stage in our development as a species. When my son was younger, he would sometimes ask if he could have a glass of wine with dinner. My response was no. Now that he’s an adult, when he's home from college I’m the one who offers him a glass. 

For all we know, God might well be doing something similar. Anyone who presumes to claim otherwise with (false) certainty would seem to be setting himself above God.

Time and change were created by God as much as anything else.  Given the dramatic changes of the past 2,000 years, it's certainly conceivable that God might have different instructions for us now than he did back then.

It's breathtaking that some traditionalists seem to think otherwise — that God had exactly one chance to say everything he was ever going to have to say to us, and therefore what he caused to be said in Scripture was “it,” once and for all. 

They blaspheme against the Holy Spirit who deny even the possibility that God might say something different to us now.  It might happen to be true that God would never change what he putatively said before. But categorically declaring that to be the case is way, WAY above our pay grade.

Paul had the right advice in 1 Thess. 5.20-21:  Don’t despise those who claim to be inspired by the Spirit — test everything, and keep that which proves to be good.

---

* There's no reason reason to assume Scripture was any more God-inspired than, say, Newton’s Principia or Einstein’s special- and general-relativity papers. If anything, Newton's and Einstein's writings arguably had an additional divine credential: they weren't merely creatures of their authors' creativity, they were testable against the actual reality that God wrought (cf. Deut. 18.20-22).

Bishop Stacy Sauls' essay on Anglican polity

Bishop Stacy Sauls, who is also a lawyer and a doctoral student in canon law, has written a lengthy essay on Anglican polity. You should read it if you're at all concerned about the demands by some scripturalists that the Episcopal Church submit to the will of conservative archbishops in other countries. Here are some excerpts (all bold-faced emphasis is mine, footnotes are omitted):

• On the role of canons and polity "I am pleased ... that this conference has elected to include a consideration of polity along with ... canon law. ... Both are important to our life together because the alternative to the rule of law on this side of the kingdom of heaven is not grace, but the rule of men (and I use the gender-exclusive term quite intentionally), men who equate their prejudices with God’s word, their ambitions with God’s will, and their agendas with the tradition of God’s Church. Polity and canon law are the security of God’s people against the wrongful exercise of power."

• The three key aspects of Anglicanism polity: "The constitutional identity of Anglicanism is not in the violent course of the English Reformation itself but in the Elizabethan Settlement that brought that violence to an end by charting a middle way. That Settlement has three key aspects: (1) the principle of autonomy, (2) the principle of toleration, and (3) the principle of lay participation in the governance of the Church.

• On local autonomy: "... the supremacy has found expression in Anglican canon law, not so much vesting authority in a hereditary monarch, even a constitutional one, as vesting authority for the government of national churches in national communities. It is a principle we have come to recognize as local autonomy, and it has been considered fundamental to the identity of Anglicanism."

• On the importance of the laity in Anglican polity: "The laity thus assumed a very powerful role in the life and governance of the Church of England from the beginning. The role of the laity remains a fundamental characteristic of Anglicanism."

•On agreeing to disagree in matters of theology: "The first Prayer Book in 1549 expressed its catholic theology of the presence of Christ in the consecrated elements of bread and wine ('The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee' and 'The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee'). The second Prayer Book in 1552 expressed a quite different Zwinglian theology of the Eucharist ('Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee' and 'Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for thee'). The Elizabethan Prayer Book in 1559 combined the two, doctrinal inconsistency notwithstanding. The standardization of worship with a toleration of theological diversity has been constitutionally characteristic of Anglicanism ever since.

• On the less-exalted role of bishops in TEC: "... to my knowledge, TEC is the only Church in the Anglican Communion that took shape in its formation entirely without the involvement of bishops. ... in TEC’s origin, securing the historic [episcopal apostolic] succession in the former colonies was secondary in importance to uniting the isolated and scattered congregations formerly a part of the Church of England."

• On the supremacy of General Convention in TEC: "... the exercise of episcopacy was one area in which [TEC's] central authority initially delegated power to the states. Each state was to choose its own bishop according to its own rules. Some dioceses even limited their bishops to a seat in their state conventions without the right to preside, and some allowed a bishop to be tried for offenses without the presence of another bishop. The General Convention has reclaimed a great deal of this authority over the years, as is its right."

• On the non-unitary nature of the Anglican Communion: "Last year the present Archbishop of Canterbury expressed his concern that the Anglican Communion might, in its current tensions, degenerate into no more than a federation. I was immediately alarmed, as a federation is already a great deal more than I think we are now."

• On the draft Anglican Covenant: "The draft Anglican Covenant ... abrogates the constitutional principles that make us Anglicans. It abrogates the principle of lay participation in the governance of the Church by placing disproportionate emphasis on the views of the highest ranking bishops. It abrogates the principle of toleration by imposing a standard, and more frighteningly a mechanism, for judging orthodoxy other than the idea of common worship. Most dangerously of all, it appears merely to compromise the principle of autonomy when, if fact, it virtually destroys it by vesting the right to determine what is a matter of common concern, what the common mind of the Communion is, and what punishment is appropriate for violations of the common mind in the Primates Meeting. It is as if the English Reformation, to say nothing either of the Elizabethan Settlement or the constitutional development over time of independent churches voluntarily cooperating on the basis of a shared heritage, never happened."

• On property litigation: "There are many pleas coming from secessionist congregations and dioceses to end the recourse to secular law, a plea that has been adopted recently by the Joint Standing Committee. Since the secessionist case is so weak in secular as well as canon law, the plea, while understandable, is also hollow. The most appropriate, and absolutely effective, way to end all property litigation immediately is for the secessionists and uninvited bishops to stop trying to steal the property."

• On same-sex blessings: "... I believe General Convention, as the legitimate voice of the whole Church, should begin a process to move toward authorizing such liturgies sooner rather than later. In the meantime, though, I think it is incumbent upon the rest of us, particularly bishops—individually and collectively, as something less than the General Convention, to wait on General Convention to act because it is crucial to maintaining our polity that we do."

What happened to 'an inquiring and discerning heart'?

Dean Nick Knisely alerts us to an article by Savi Hensman in Ekklesia. The article documents Anglicanism's traditional approval of the pursuit of knowledge, and notes how, in some precincts of the Anglican Communion, that pursuit is scorned and even suppressed when it comes to homosexuality.

It's said that the Episcopal Church believes as it prays. In our post-baptismal prayer (BCP p.308), the celebrant petitions God to give the newly baptized "an inquiring and discerning heart, . . . a spirit to know and to love you, and the gift of joy in wonder in all your works." It seems that some hardliners would prefer conformity to particular human understandings instead.

Here's an excerpt from the Hinsman piece; bold-faced emphasis is mine:

‘Anyone of discretion acts by the light of knowledge,’ wrote the ancient author of Proverbs. Many people of faith highly value study and work diligently to deepen their understanding, in a spirit of humility and compassion. However others are less open, either because they are supremely confident that their own views are superior to any alternatives or because they fear that too much questioning will undermine faith or offend the Almighty. They may indeed undertake some learning, but within tightly restricted boundaries. Some even try to silence or expel dissenters.

Current tensions among Anglicans to some extent reflect these differences of approach. Until quite recently in this denomination, the quest for knowledge tended to be rated highly. Even if there was vigorous disagreement on particular matters, there was some measure of trust that the church, if open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would be led towards truth and justice. Yet some leaders now not only refuse to consider scholarship which does not conform to their own perspective but also demand the right to prohibit others from acting on the fruits of study.

This is a sharp break with mainstream Anglicanism. ‘It is no part of the purpose of the Scriptures to give information on those themes which are the proper subject matter of scientific enquiry, nor is the Bible a collection of separate oracles, each containing a final declaration of truth. The doctrine of God is the centre of its teaching,’ bishops from different parts of the world agreed at the 1930 Lambeth Conference. ‘We believe that the work of our Lord Jesus Christ is continued by the Holy Spirit, who not only interpreted him to the Apostles, but has in every generation inspired and guided those who seek truth.’ And ‘We recognize in the modern discoveries of science - whereby the boundaries of knowledge are extended, the needs of men are satisfied and their sufferings alleviated - veritable gifts of God, to be used with thankfulness to him, and with that sense of responsibility which such thankfulness must create.’

In 1958, the Lambeth Conference gratefully acknowledged ‘our debt to the host of devoted scholars who, worshipping the God of Truth, have enriched and deepened our understanding of the Bible, not least by facing with intellectual integrity the questions raised by modern knowledge and modern criticism’, and ‘the work of scientists in increasing man's knowledge of the universe, wherein is seen the majesty of God in his creative activity. It therefore calls upon Christian people both to learn reverently from every new disclosure of truth, and at the same time to bear witness to the biblical message of a God and Saviour apart from whom no gift can be rightly used.’ * * *

While caution is indeed important in approaching new developments and discoveries (and rediscoveries), and theories should be tested rigorously, those who ignore or suppress the fruits of study in fact put huge confidence not in divine truth but in their own intellects, assuming it is impossible that they might be wrong. Yet no human is intellectually infallible. It is all too easy to end up ‘teaching human precepts as doctrines'  (Mark 7.7). * * *

After the Windsor Report, many clerical and lay leaders in North America were willing to postpone further steps towards full inclusion, painful though this was; but hardliners scornfully rejected such concessions. They wanted nothing less than submission to them.

Read it all.

The underlying theological disputes won't be 'settled' any time soon

A recurring theme among some scripturalists is that the church should not proceed with 'innovations' such as same-sex blessings, women's ordination, and communion without baptism, until the underlying theological questions are 'settled.' At worst, that's merely a delaying tactic; at best, it's an unrealistic approach.

We're not going to see a 'settlement' of such theological questions any time soon. Not only do people (of all persuasions) tend to fall in love with their own opinions; in the Anglican / Protestant tradition, there are few if any penalties for bitter-enders who loudly assert their opinions, even — or especially — as a contrary consensus evolves:

• Such questions can't be resolved by empirical proof one way or another; there's no penalty of peer scorn for those who refuse to face the facts, because there are no facts, at least none that are useful;

• We have no pope who can supposedly resolve the matter by ex cathedra pronouncement; there's little or no danger of excommunication for those who refuse to conform to 'settled' theology;

• In modern Western civilization, there’s no Emperor Constantine (or Grand Inquisitor or Marshal Stalin or Dear Leader) whose minions will jail or execute dissenters from 'correct' views.'

Given these realities, we're not going to see Anglican theologians joyfully proclaiming in unison, “It’s settled — Bishop X has found the right answer!” No; what we'll see instead is the theological counterpart to the aphorism that old economic theories don’t die off until old economists do.

Contribute to funding of Anglican listening process

My friend David Grizzle forwarded the following funding appeal to me and said it'd be OK to post it here. I've made a contribution and encourage readers to do the same.

For those who don't know, Dr. Louie Crew, one of the co-authors of the funding appeal, is a professor emeritus at Rutgers, founder of IntegrityUSA, and one of the deans of the LGBT movement in the Episcopal Church. The Rev. Canon Brian Cox, the other co-author, is rector of Christ the King Episcopal Church, an orthodox congregation in Santa Barbara, California, and senior vice president of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy in Washington DC.

Here's David's email:

---

D.C.,

You may wish to consider this appeal and forward to some of your constituents.

I have contributed [a generous sum - DCT]. As most people would measure coordinates, Louie Crew and I are antipodes for one another. However, we are dear friends, because we both believe that truth and love are more important organizational subsistence.

I wanted to contribute to this effort because I do not want my extreme orthodox views ever to be construed as contempt or indifference.

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Louie Crew
Sent: Oct 10, 2007 8:40 PM
To: David Grizzle
Subject: A 'Bi-Partisan' Appeal to Help Fund the Listening Process in the Anglican Communion

David Grizzle, Esq.

Gentle David Grizzle,

We write this appeal to you as leaders in the Episcopal Church who have profoundly different convictions about matters concerning human sexuality. Yet, both of us are committed to reconciliation as a different paradigm or culture from win/lose advocacy in terms of how we as a faith community deal with the deepest of differences among us.

We write this appeal in light of the House of Bishops' recent decision in New Orleans to respond affirmatively to the primates' request for clarification regarding approval of suitable candidates for bishop and authorizing liturgies for same-sex unions. This offer to refrain from moving forward has created space to launch an Anglican Communion Wide Listening Process. In a sense, the time has come for a global conversation in the Anglican Communion about human sexuality. The purpose of the Listening Process is to hear the concerns of all members of the Anglican Family; not only gays and lesbians but also Global South leaders. The purpose of the Listening Process is not to create a predetermined outcome or to "wear opponents down." It is to hear respectfully one another's stories, hopes and fears about this matter.

The facilitator of the Listening Process explains: "The ACC 13 resolution talked of mutual listening. We are attempting to listen to all voices including Global South voices, indigenous groups, those who describe themselves as having same sex attraction and who support Lambeth 1.10, and an array of other voices. We are not setting up a polarised debate, but an attempt to enable listening. It [our report to the Lambeth Conference] will not make any claim to be a definitive document, but to promote ongoing dialogue."

We appeal to you to consider a financial gift to support this initiative of the Anglican Consultation Council. Approximately $80,000 is needed to fully fund this initiative.

Please direct your gift to the ACC account in New York made payable to the "Anglican Consultative Council" with a memo "For the LGBT Listening Process."

Account Name Anglican Consultative Council Account No 42 914 652
Bank: Deutsche Bank Trust Co Americas
280 Park Avenue NYC03-0201
New York NY 10017 USA

The ACC has pledged to use gifts thus designated solely for that purpose. Phil Groves [Phil.Groves [|at|] anglicancommunion [|dot|} org], the facilitator of the Listening Process, can make available to any donor full accounts of funds thus restricted.

Please be generous.

Dr. Louie Crew
The Reverend Canon Brian Cox

Carol Towarnicky: What the word sodomy really means

[From here:]

The word "sodomy" comes from the idea that homosexual sex was the sin for which God destroyed the inhabitants of these two ancient cities.

The story is told in Genesis (19). The men of Sodom surrounded Lot's house and demanded that he let them rape two heavenly messengers whom he had invited into his home. Lot refused, instead offering the men sex with his unmarried daughters.

The "traditional" interpretation of the story turns out to be a relatively modern one not shared by the ancient Hebrews. The "iniquity" of Sodom was long understood to represent the failure to offer hospitality to visitors, a matter of life and death in desert societies. In the words of the prophet Ezekiel (16:49), Sodom's sins were "pride, fullness of bread, an abundance of idleness" and a failure to help the poor and needy.

But the context of the Sodom story supports another interpretation: In the verses immediately before it, God has already decided to destroy the city, but Abraham exacts a promise that it will be spared if 10 men are found to be innocent. If the sin of Sodom was homosexuality, and all the men were guilty of it, why would Lot think his daughters would satisfy them? And does saving Lot mean God approved of his willingness to let his daughters be raped?

Jewish legends about Sodom, called "midrash," make the same point, describing the crimes of the Sodomites as over-the-top greed and cruelty to visitors.

If the very source of the word sodomy is based on a misreading of the Bible, how much else have the traditionalists misunderstood? [Ed: I've taken to calling them "scripturalists," because they certainly don't represent Anglican tradition]

[Emphasis added; read the rest. Hat tip: JB Chilton at The Lead.]

The evolution of church doctrine about homosexuality is itself a continuation of "the apostles' teaching and fellowship"

Over at TitusOneNine, my friend Philip Snyder of Dallas writes: 

Could, for example, General Convention vote that Baptism was to be in the name of Jesus only? How about GC voting to say that Jesus is of like substance with the Father or that the Trinity is not a true statement of the nature of God, but that God is truly one person with three (or more!) masks or avatars or functions?   

... In our baptism, the first promise that we make is to continue in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship.  Where is the blessing of same sex unions within that teaching?  If it is not there, then why are you doing it?  If you think it should be there, why do you risk the apostles’ fellowship to impliment it before the rest of the church agrees?

I was pleased that Phil mentioned the two examples in his first above-quoted paragraph.

"The apostles' teaching and fellowship" included a willingness to let doctrines and practices evolve

Taking Phil's second example first: I thought it was generally accepted that church doctrine about the precise nature of the Trinity evolved over time, and was indeed eventually settled by being voted on in council. 

(At times back then the voting franchise seems to have been restricted to imperially-approved bishops — and the emperor himself — but that doesn’t mean we have to abide by the same restriction.) 

But the first example Phil gives, concerning baptism in the name of Jesus only, is even more interesting. As I’ve said before, if we’re to believe the reports in the Book of Acts, we must conclude that baptizing in the name of Jesus only is precisely what Peter et al. did, that is when they baptized in the name of anyone at all. This suggests unmistakably that one or both of the following is true:

Possibility A: Acts simply got it wrong in reporting that Peter et al. baptized in the name of Jesus only. In this case, we naturally wonder:

• what else in Acts and its prequel Luke might be wrong — no matter how carefully Luke investigated (see Luke 1), his sources might have misremembered or even “spun” their accounts;

• where the other scriptural authors might have erred in their writing (and there are plenty of candidates);

• what all this means for the scripturalist worldview.

Possibility B: Baptism in the name of the Trinity reflects an evolution in the church's thinking. Perhaps Acts didn't get it wrong, and the earliest church did indeed baptize in the name of Jesus only. This suggests that baptism in the name of the Trinity was a later innovation in the church’s practice, reflecting an evolution in theological thinking. We find indirect support for this view in the earliest-written gospel, that of Mark, in which the Great Commission does not contain the same trinitarian baptismal formula as the later Matthean version. 

It’s not evident that an evolution of baptismal practice either (i) originated with, or (ii) was approved by, the surviving apostles. If that had been the case, we might expect to read an account of the approval process itself somewhere, comparable to what we read of the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.

And speaking of the circumcision controversy: It was authoritatively resolved, not by Peter or any of the Twelve, but by James the brother of Jesus, who evidently was a latecomer to the church and does not have an obvious claim to authority via any dominical commission. 

Implication 1: Today's church is doing just what the early church did

Possibility B above — together with with the resolution of the circumcision controversy by James and not by any of the Twelve — strongly implies that in the early church, the apostles’ theological thinking and practices were not treated as immutable authority, but instead as the foundation for a continuing process of theological evolution.

If Possibility B is correct, and I think it is, then by engaging in The Current Disputes about homosexuality and the authority of Scripture, we are indeed continuing in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship; that is, we are working together to study and resolve claims of new insight as they arise, just as they did. And also just as in the early church, our resolution of claims of new insight might well involve departing from the specifics of what the earliest apostles thought and did.  Cf. 1 Thess. 5.19-21:  “Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies [that is, claims of new insight] with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good.”

Implication 2: The early church "adjusted" their writings to fit their evolving beliefs and practices

Another implication of Possibility B is that the early church felt free to put words in Jesus’ mouth, viz., in the Matthean version of the Great Commission, to match the evolution of thinking and practice.

That of course raises the question: What else in the NT might have been “adjusted” by later editors to fit the then-current thinking and practice?

Here's one example, about which I've written before:

There is some evidence that Luke's gospel may have been edited to emphasize Jesus's divinity. In Luke's account of Jesus's baptism, a voice from heaven makes a statement (Lk. 3:22). In most English translations, the statement is rendered, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." 

But scholars have noted that earlier manuscripts consistently provide instead a quotation from Psalm 2:7: "and a voice came from heaven, which said, 'you are my son; today I have begotten you.'" See, e.g., footnote 8 of Luke 3 in the New Living Translation: "Some manuscripts read and today I have become your Father." 

The earlier version has decidedly different implications for the nature of Jesus. It suggests that Luke and his sources may have regarded Jesus as an ordinary mortal until his baptism, at which time he was "adopted" by God as his son. It's possible that, in order to refute this so-called adoptionist heresy, the original Lucan text may have been altered.

Stop the Monday-morning quarterbacking, already!

Concerning this week's House of Bishops report, "liberal" blogger Scott Gunn writes, and traditionalist über-blogger Kendall Harmon agrees: “If we say that we’re not ready to authorize SSB’s [same-sex blessings], then let us ensure that they are not happening in our churches. Then if some priest (possibly including this one) wants to do them anyway, let’s face the consequences.”

That’s the fallacy of the false dichotomy, which I encounter mostly in traditionalist circles. It doesn’t have to be either-or, where the bishops must either authorize and encourage SSB, or flat-out prohibit them, with nothing in between.

There is indeed a middle ground, and the House of Bishops seems to be taking it. In effect, they're saying something like this: As a body, we won’t authorize SSBs. But neither are we as a body prepared to prohibit them. As a body, we’re remaining neutral, taking no position. Priests who feel called to perform SSB, and whose bishops don’t prohibit it, presumably will do what they feel called to do, for good or ill — at least we’ll all learn from what follows.

Given the divisions within TEC on this subject, that’s not at all an unreasonable course of action. What is unreasonable, not to mention unseemly, is all the hypercritical second-guessing of the bishops that’s going on about it.

Some traditionalists claim that by failing to prohibit same-sex blessings, the bishops have implicitly authorized them. Nonsense; here's what that logic would lead to:

• In Jena, Louisiana, white teenagers hung nooses from a tree, supposedly as a “prank.” Their action was roundly and rightly condemned, but the district attorney and the U.S. attorney (an African-American) concluded that neither Louisiana law nor federal law prohibited the action. As a result, no one was prosecuted for the noose-hanging. Moreover, it seems unlikely that either the Louisiana legislature or the Congress will change the law to permit people to be sent to jail for such actions.

Does that mean that the Louisiana governor and legislature, and Congress and the president, “authorized” the teenagers to hang nooses from a tree, and by failing to change the law, are authorizing similar conduct in the future? Of course not. But that’s what these trads seem to be arguing.

• Another example: A couple of years ago, my teen-aged son drove “his” old four-wheel-drive pick-up truck into a muddy field to help pull out another vehicle that had gotten stuck. It was only later that he (we) learned that the mud had damaged his brakes. So as it happened, his Good-Samaritan intentions didn’t work out all that well, at least not for my bank account.

I hadn’t prohibited my son from driving in mud before he did so. Nor did I do so afterwards: I wasn’t going to second-guess his good intentions, nor his judgment, by forbidding him to do something that in some circumstances might make sense.

Did I thereby “authorize” my son to drive in mud, or to damage his brakes? Of course not; I left it up to his judgment.  There's a big difference.

It seems to me that we’re in a similar situation concerning SSBs. We don’t know yet whether the eventual costs of SSBs will outweigh the benefits. Reasonable minds can differ whether SSBs are a good idea (and the views of the various scriptural authors cannot serve as the final word, on that subject or any other).

Consequently, if liberal Bishop Bruno of Los Angeles sees fit NOT to prohibit his front-line clergy from doing private SSBs, or even if he expressly authorizes such action, it’s highly improper for traditionalists to be savaging him for not doing what they think he should have done, because on that subject reasonable minds can differ.

The same goes for traditionalist Bishop Wimberly of Texas: If he won’t let his clergy do SSBs (which he won’t), that’s also his decision — although as a member of his diocese I hope he'll eventually change his mind — and it'd be equally improper for liberals to excoriate him for that decision, because on that subject reasonable minds can differ.

Circling back to the House of Bishops decision: Personally I might have preferred for the HoB to tell the Global South primates to butt out, in no uncertain terms, and let the chips fall where they may. Many traditionalists would have preferred just the opposite, namely a prohibition of SSBs and active-gay consecrations, accompanied by sackcloth and ashes. But none of us are charged with that particular responsibility. All this criticism of the HoB’s decision, from both ends of the ideological spectrum, accusing them of bearing false witness and worse, strikes me as the worst kind of petulant Monday-morning quarterbacking by people who take themselves a bit too seriously.

To our radical-traditionalist cousins overseas

Predictably, some of the radical traditionalists in the Anglican Communion are upset about the House of Bishops' report this week.

Cousins, we love you, but: Butt out.