As well as the publicly-known issue (ie. whether a person was openly gay or not, so to speak, at the point of offering for candidature), I suspect there's another issue that centres around the understanding of authority (episcope) and bishops. And we in the Uniting Church don't have so much direct experience of bishops, so I'm talking from theory not practice, from my reading in the field of ecumenism, and episcope more specifically.
My understanding is that in most traditions Bishops are the ones to confer ordination (and baptism in at least some traditions too), rather that your general run-of-the-mill ordained person (not that I've ever met one of them, from memory). In the UCA we are used to seeing a bit of a mix of ordained and lay people lay hands on the candidate during ordination, so our view is a bit slanted by practise. What I guess happens theologically is that the authority of the church, the apostolic succession or episcope, is conferred by the blessing of the bishop, who represents the authority of the church in that place/region at that time. In the UCA our structure for this authority is the presbytery, so it's probably the chair of presbytery and other presbytery members who are vested with the authority to ordain. This is exactly why some traditions have trouble with our ordination, and our ordained -- they're not "proper" because we don't have a "proper" bishop who was made bishop by a "proper" bishop before him, and so on back to the original apostles, so to speak (yes, I know the male pronoun is there, inappropriately or inaccurately). So, perhaps it's one thing to have a gay priest and a whole other thing to have a gay bishop -- theologically speaking. Regards, Rohan Rohan Pryor Manager, Information Technology Services Synod of Victoria and Tasmania Uniting Church in Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: (03) 9251 5243 Fax: (03) 9654 4110 Website: http://vic.uca.org.au -----Original Message----- From: Lindsay Brash [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Anglicans, Episcopalians, CISAFIM and stuff G'day All, At 10:57 AM 5/11/03 +1100, Gordon Ramsay wrote: >Firstly, I have been a bit surprised that all of the angst has come out >over the consecration of a USA bishop. My surprise is that it is about >"bishops". And if a gay person is being consecrated as a bishop, they're >already a priest. I would have thought that the problem would have been >just as significant with a gay person being a priest as with being a >bishop. If any major falling out was to take place, shouldn't it have >happened earlier over gay priests, rather than waiting till one got to be >a bishop? Any ideas on this one? Yes I have had similar thoughts. I think the difference for the people in question (Gene Robinson and Jeffery Johns) is that at the time of their ordination they were not openly gay and/or not openly in a gay relationship. When they subsequently "came out" or started a relationship, there is not a significant defining moment at which to protest. And I'm not sure what would be the mechanism for removing a priest - maybe that is considered too hard. But that raises another question - have there been any attempts to ordain a priest who is in a homosexual relationship? If yes, why were they not protested? If no, perhaps that shows that it is easier for conservative elements to keep these people out of the priesthood entirely - it is easier to raise doubts about a persons suitability for ministry *before* they are in ministry. But for Gene Robinson to be considered bishop material he must have shown himself to be rather suitable for ministry, so it is more difficult to raise popular doubts. >Secondly, in the interview on Lateline the other night, Peter Jensen (who >I thought did pretty well) also talked about the difficulty he had with >the proposed consecration of a celibate gay man as a bishop earlier this >year (which did not proceed). I thought his argument had pretty good >internal validity - but it revolved around the fact that the man "had not >repented" of an earlier gay relationship. Therefore adherence and >commitment to Celibacy in Singleness and Faithfulness in Marriage >(CISAFIM) was not a good enough sexual ethic. >It was the first time that I think I had heard CISAFIM being described as >insufficient from someone in the quite conservative part of the argument. I guess it is a fine line but I suppose Jensen would say that adherence and commitment to CISAFIM needs to include repentance for transgressions against it. And I think that most christians would expect the same principle to apply whether they were committed to, say, the 10 commandments or to the great commandment. As it happens, I'm not sure that Johns is saying he is committed to CISAFIM, just that he is celibate. Kind regards, Lindsay Brash. ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
