Wednesday, September 10, 2003

Turn Out The Lights.
Blow Out the Candles.
Melt Down the Vessels.
Empty the Fonts (And the Tabernacles).

That's what we might as well do if we follow the lead of Frank Griswold, the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church.

In justifying the ECUSA's election of openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson, Bishop Griswold defended their definitive break with the constant and unanimous witness of Church teaching, the Church Fathers, and Scripture by saying, in effect, that none of that stuff really means anything. The "truth" is whatever you make of it:
There were no right nor wrong interpretations of Scripture, Bishop Griswold explained to the Primates. “There is no such thing as a neutral reading of Scripture. While we all accept the authority of Scripture, we interpret various passages in different ways." (thanks to Dale for the story)

OK, Bishop Griswold, what if my "interpretation" of Scripture was that Israel was the chosen people of God, and that He had given them the land of Palestine, so the Israelis have the right to nuke, burn, pillage and enslave the Palestinians? Is that a legitimate interpretation of Scripture? On what basis could you argue yea or nay?

What if my "intepretation" of Scripture was that since, in biblical times, women were given in marriage at age 14 or 15 (even the Virgin Mary - not that you believe she was actually a "virgin" - was that old when she was married to Joseph), it was perfectly acceptable for fathers to force their daughters into arranged marriages at age 14? Would that be OK? On what basis could you say?

Is this fatuous, vapid efflatus issuing from Bishop Griswold what now passes for thought in the Episcopal Church? Oh, for the days of Keble and Pusey! While they were in error in some things, they were men that you could take intellectually seriously. But Griswold and his confreres in the ECUSA are just pathetic.

While I was in grad shcool, a friend of mine met an Episcopalian cleric in one of his classes at CUA. One day in class they were debating something, and the Episcopalian was arguing a self-contradictory position. My friend, growing rather exasperated, at one point cried out "don't you see you can't have it both ways? You're violating the law of non-contradiction!" The Episcopalian glibly replied "Oh, I gave up on the law of non-contradiction years ago." My friend, after a moment of stunned silence, then said, "Well, then, I won't be able to talk with you further. Since your assertions have all the meaning of bibble-babble, I'll just have to ignore you."