tm dot μ dot ν

More on the Episcopal Question

In my earlier 'Episcopal Bishops' post I gave two basic arguments against the whole gay bishop thing. I was clearly against it but not really emotionally committed.

Now I am. I've been reading a bit on both sides -- the weblogs of conservative Episcopalians and of gays -- and I'm starting to feel some of the pain my fellow believers like John Derbyshire and others are feeling.

I'm a conservative Reformed Protestant. If you don't know your theology, well that's about as far away from the Episcopal Church as you can get, 'cept for maybe Pentecostalism. But being rather unorthodox (not theologically, but temperamentally) I feel quite attracted to the whole Anglican thing -- the idea of a big umbrella church, worldwide and fairly theologically conservative, willing to accept opposing views within the denomination but also willing to condemn clearly unbiblical shit like this recent ECUSA decision. If I could find a Calvinist-minded parish I'd be quite tempted to jump ship. I see the depths of love these persons have for their Church. They're debating with themselves whether to stay or leave. On the one hand, God's Word says not to associate with those who claim to be Christian yet whose words and actions spit on orthodoxy like these actions have. But on the other hand, they'll be turning their backs on their Church.

The gay blogs are almost uniformly jeering. About time. With a few exceptions, no thought is given to the fact that they might be horribly wrong -- and that even if they're right, they're forcing their views of sexuality on an ignored minority. Who's being oppressed here anyway? It doesn't take an evangelical to figure out that something's wrong here. Collins smelled a rat, as did James Lileks. Then again Collins is a proved genius and Lileks is the closest thing the Blogosphere has to a pope. I mean, Instaman's good for news and all, but when Lileks speaks ex Bleatam*....**

*I looked up latin declensions for authenticity's sake. 'Bleat' is accusative case (the object, "from the Bleat) so I had the choices of -am, -um, -em or -û. Went with the first-declension feminine. It's pronounced bl... well never mind that, I'm sure I'd get it wrong. Whenever I see something in a for'n (apologies, Buck the Marine) language I just pronounce it como si fuera español, except for French which I don't even try to guess at anymore. I mean they pronounce 'oui' like we pronounce 'wee' when it clearly's trying to say 'owie' as in "Owie Mommy these French people can't pronounce me, and I'm pretty important considering that I mean yes in this stupid language so in conclusion**** these French people are idiots"

**I think ellipses "..." are my trademark blogging eccentricity (compare Tiger's footnoting, Susie's hyper (in the ADD sense) linking, Glenn Reynolds' pithy one-worders....**

***Dangit, there I go again. Since I started blogging I can't seem to end a post with a period like everyone else in the free world does.

****I use 'so in conclusion' a lot too. It's an ironic gesture hat-tipping to the fact that teachers always make you write a conclusion to your papers, but don't give students any ideas on how to begin it. Since most high schoolers are raving idiots, they don't have any Clue about making transitions. They just tack a restatement of the thesis behind an 'In conclusion'. And here is a good place for me to stop.

Posted by Tim at August 11, 2003 07:43 AM