8/09/2007

BabyBlue's Road Trip

OK, BabyBlue and I occasionally wave to each other across a considerable divide (perhaps a chasm, perhaps just a freeway) and we sometimes really really really get on each other's nerves, but, when she sets her mind to it that woman can write! Just a few days ago she wrote an essay titled, "A Journey from ConCom to FedCom?" In it BabyBlue gives us something of her journey and her heart's desire, and like Dorothy of Wizard of Oz fame she also gives hints that there is no place like home, if only home could be found. It is a fine piece.

I was amused by the "ConCom" designation in her title and essay because it made me think of a similar designation in Seven Days in May, a movie about a possible military takeover of the United States. In that movie there was a "site Y" where a military group called "EComCon" was training. It was supposed that "EComCon" might be about emergency communication control. In my mind, such as it is, I flashed an inversion of that and thought perhaps ConCom had to do with Control and Communication in Anglican-land.

"FedCom" and "ConCom" are wonderful abbreviations, and lo, they were created right there in our nation's capital, apparently on Dupont Circle. Funny and wonderful as they are, I find the distinction between the two modes of realignment thinking artificial. I don't believe they are two separate modes at all but rather concentric efforts in a plan for realignment and replacement.

But I find nothing artificial at all about BabyBlue's unfolding of her own journey. We should all hope to be as skillful in telling the story of our own journeys.

8 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Link to BB does not work, Jake -

    ReplyDelete
  3. tom, pamela, jake...thanks, fixed it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It would be a lot more beautiful if BB weren't stepping on the backs of LGBT Christians, particularly those in Nigeria.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Diane: Though you may disagree, even vehemently, with BabyBlue, I highly doubt she has set out to "step on" LGBT Christians, even the largely anonymous (to us) ones in Nigeria. I find her testimony sincere and poignent, even if I believe that you and her represent opposite sides in a debate that should not be fracturing the Anglican Communion. If the issue is sexuality, then it is not a core issue and should not be the litmus test for orthodoxy. If the issues are more foundational, then why do we keep returning to sexuality?

    I don't see much on either side that speaks of God's grace, the expansiveness of the Anglican Communion, or the work of the Holy Spirit. What I do see are statements of rights, power, the fact that God is on their side, and the increasing polarization of the church. As a self-proclaimed centrist, I disagree partially with both "sides" but I respect their right to sincere testimony. In short, just because you don't agree with BabyBlue, don't dismiss her testimony just because you believe her to be one of those LGBT oppressors.

    Where I take issue with BabyBlue is that she assumes that the affirmation of Gene Robinson's election was essentially a political move, having nothing to do with God at all. It appears that you hold the view that BabyBlue's testimony is simply a manifesto of oppression, similarly having nothing to do with God at all. I think you are both wrong.

    Keep in mind, most folks in this debate are simply trying to live their lives as Christians as faithfully as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you, Mark, for your very kind post. I must find a way to buy you a beer (if not a butterbeer). I also agree with you are saying, Tom Sramek. At the heart of the division is conflict not only over the interpretation of scripture, but also revelation. How do we test when the Spirit is doing a new thing? I don't believe the Holy Spirit went to sleep after the first century of the Church (as some Protestants do), but that He is alive and active in the Church and in believers today.

    Susan Russell was sincere that warm August day in 2003 when she exclaimed that it was "Easter Day!" She really believed it - but if she was right then the understanding of the orthodox Anglicans regarding the doctrine on revelation was at risk. From an orthodox Anglican view, this "new thing" was extra-biblical and had not been tested. In that way, it was a political move, not a theological one. What theological work had been done so far had warned The Episcopal Church to not go forward, including the theological committee of the House of Bishops itself. Lambeth 1.10 also spoke clearly about the matter and the Archbishop of Canterbury himself had asked that the Episcopal Church wait until there was consensus in the communion.

    So yes, I do believe it was a political move, a particularly American way of going forward. The theological work had not been done to make such a drastic change in our understanding not only of human sexuality but of Christian marriage and the doctrinal authority of Scripture and the doctrine of revelation.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  7. BabyBlue: Thanks for your words. I will admit that legislative decisions have often gone before theological groundwork, but, as has been stated before, we've been at this sexuality conversation for well on 20 years now and as early as 2000 the writing was on the wall that things were going in a new direction. You yourself talked about things changing as early as 10 years ago (General Convention 1997).

    So, while I think some more theological groundwork could have been done, anyone that was paying the least bit of attention shouldn't have been surprised at the affirmation of Gene Robinson's election. I think my biggest surprise was that everyone was so surprised, even shocked.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The issue I have with BB is that, if I'm not mistaken, she's a member of one of those break-away "Anglican" parishes in Virginia.

    If that's so, why is she continually harping on what's wrong with TEC - a denomination to which she doesn't belong ?

    Heck, I gots plenty of issues with, say, the Southern Baptists or the AoG, but I don't hang out on their blogs, or my own, haranguing them for their supposed theological errors, writing snarky little comments about their leaders, etc...

    BB, just enjoy where you are (if you can), and leave us in peace, 'K ?

    ReplyDelete

OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.