jQuery Slider

You are here

GRISWOLD, BELIEFNET AND DISBELIEF

GRISWOLD, BELIEFNET.NET AND DISBELIEF
Unspinning ECUSA's Presiding Bishop

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church recently bared his soul to an online news service called Beliefnet.net. In it he opines that the denomination's current path is the only way--because it's 'truthful.'

He said, "secrecy is the devil's playground," suggesting that those who want to accommodate homosexuality behind the scenes while publicly condemning it are the ones encouraging "sexual aberrance."

He also disputed the claim by conservatives that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams supports their actions and suggested that conservatives are fighting Griswold's proposal--to be discussed by the denomination's bishops at a March meeting--to accommodate their needs because, paradoxically, it is workable. He believes conservatives want to keep the fight going.

Let us unpack this for a moment.

Who says it's "truthful" apart from Griswold himself and 62 revisionist bishops. Ninety-five percent of the Anglican communion disagrees with him about homosexual misbehavior, so who's telling the truth?

Given Griswold's past record it is presumed to be a lie unless he gives specific names and specific credible proof. The truth is Griswold is not to be trusted. For example he told Bishop Charles E. Bennison (Pennsylvania) to back off from his persecution of Fr. David Moyer, rector of Good Shepherd, or he would make a public statement. He remained silent when Bennison refused.

Are there orthodox bishops out there in ECUSA he won't publicly name, who are saying to him privately, "we agree with you Frank, but we can't say it publicly because it might offend our orthodox priests and laity."

This is too disingenuous by half. I know of no one at this late stage in the pansexual development in ECUSA who does not know or needs to conceal his/her preferences. Every single vote by every bishop can be found at Louie Crew's website. He has documented every bishop's vote on sexuality issues. It is public knowledge.

Every bishop has publicly voted on same-sex blessings, Robinson's consecration, the Lambeth resolution and more, and those who sit on the fence, that is, they are against same-sex blessings but for Robinson's consecration (or vise versa) are playing a shell game. We all know where they stand, they fool no one.

If Griswold says he knows who they are then let us hear from them. Perhaps he might include a Primate or two? If he does it would make world news. Any African Primate (apart from Southern Africa which has declared itself for ECUSA), or Southern cone bishop, a South East Asian bishop who has not declared himself is either lying or being deceitful. So Bishop Griswold put up or shut up.

(That "proposal" he talks about is for "supplemental pastoral care" not "Alternative epipscopal oversight" and the American Anglican Council and the newly formed Network has already rejected that option.) But you can be sure he will get his version passed when the House of Bishops meet in March, and then try and convince Rowan Williams that that is the best deal he can come up with. It won't fly and the orthodox know it.

When it comes to homosexuality, those on the orthodox side of the fence have been saying all along that homosexual behavior is "sexually aberrant behavior". They have never moved from that position. Now that is hardly new news. Tell us something we don't know. The Roman Catholic Church has consistently said it is "disordered behavior" and they have not moved from that position either.

Griswold said he also disputes the conservative claim that Rowan Williams has approved of the new Network. He is lying. Canon David Anderson, Bishop James Stanton (Dallas) and others have heard it personally from the lips of Williams that he approves of their actions.

Furthermore there have been numerous published reports especially from this writer about statements that Dr. Williams has made approving the right of the orthodox to begin their own program of episcopal oversight. Now the archbishop is not encouraging separation or a split in the ECUSA, but the expression "church within a church" has not been publicly repudiated by him, and he is watching developments as they shape up in ECUSA. Furthermore he has NOT publicly condemned or repudiated the formation of the new Network in Plano recently or the other Plano and East Plano gatherings of the faithful in ECUSA. He has been remarkably quiet and restrained.

Griswold has no grounds for saying what he does. None.

But then Griswold did admit that the church will experience "some sort of schism". On that point he could be absolutely right. And he and his revisionist bishops are the cause of that schism. It was his two-faced deceptive actions at the Lambeth conference where he signed a pastoral statement agreeing not to push homosexuality and then returning to the US to consecrate Gene Robinson that is the cause of the split in ECUSA. Nothing else. He and his pals caused it and now he wants to blame the orthodox for what he calls the schism in ECUSA. This is turning truth totally on its head.

Then he covers his self-righteousness and pain by saying he sleeps well and "grounds" himself by reading the Psalms twice a day and celebrating Eucharist.

"I’m reading Psalms. The Psalms often describe people in difficult places and yet they say, “nevertheless God is at hand.” He then cites Psalm 139, which he says, essentially says, “There is nowhere I can go from your presence. I go down to the depths of hell and you’re there, and I go to the highest mountain and you’re there.” It gives me a larger perspective. I feel I am part of a faith community that spans the centuries and has dealt with difficult circumstances before."

Now Psalm 139 talks a lot about David's cry to be "searched". The word appears at the beginning and the end of that Psalm. And it is David's heartfelt cry that he might be found acceptable in God's sight.

Frank Griswold has been searched and found wanting by a vast swathe of the Anglican Communion. He has been deemed apostate and heretical for his views on sexuality and his looseness and vagueness on doctrine. His views have been labeled as "mystic paganism" by theologian, Rev. Dr. Robert Sanders. And another theologian, the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner has called on him to resign because he can no longer govern with integrity.

There is so much hubris in Griswold's statement that it defies all human reasoning.

If we "search" Griswold what do we find? We find references to Sufi Rumi, to going to plains "beyond good and evil", to "graceful conversation" that end up being less than graceful and always to the detriment of the orthodox, and then clouding everything in "mystery" when you run out of answers or want to avoid them. Most of it is gnosticism at best and Pelagianism at worst.

And what of setting his pit bull attorney David Booth Beers into dioceses to threaten diocesan chancellors that if they let orthodox parishes go with their buildings and do not extract fair market value he will rain hell down on them with the Dennis Canon. Griswold is a biblical lightweight, while remaining a canonical and financial fundamentalist.

Griswold uses the Eucharist like a political mantra to cover his sin and not confess it. The Eucharist in the ECUSA today is being used as a political tool and manipulated for ends that have nothing to do with its original Biblical intent. Robinson, like Griswold believes that if everyone comes to the table of our Lord and "eats of His body" then we can find resolution to all our problems and differences. In other words it doesn’t matter what you believe about the Faith or morals just take the Eucharist in you and all will be well. So what about that little scripture that says we "can eat and drink damnation to our souls" if we are caught eating and drinking "unworthily". We don’t hear those words dripping from Griswold's lips.

So why should thousands of faithful orthodox ECUSAN's endanger their souls by eating and drinking with known and declared apostates. Why should they put their souls in jeopardy?

Then Griswold tells us that at the Episcopal Church headquarters he has daily celebration of Eucharist. "I’m in the chapel. It reminds me that I’m not alone. The dynamic of the gospel is death and resurrection. The sense of losing security or wondering what’s going to happen to me is part of the pattern of faithfulness, as far as I can tell. In a very real way I’m sharing Christ’s pattern. So these things give me a sense of confidence, not that I always know what I’m going to do or say next but just a sense that it’s all OK. I sleep well."

This is pure doublespeak. He is positioning himself as the victim. That it is he who shares a "pattern of faithfulness" or "Christ's pattern". He uses "death and resurrection" to explain his pain, pain he brought on himself by repudiating Holy Scripture, by going against the orthodox faithful in ECUSA and the will of the vast majority of the Primates and much more.

BELIEFNET.NET: "It’s got to be difficult, though. Your members are fighting with each other. And you’ve got people laying plans to take over the church—people who say they want to become the Episcopal Church."

GRISWOLD: "I’ve known this for a very long time, well before Gene Robinson was elected, of the dynamics and aspirations that these people have. Ultimately people are going to do what they feel they’ve got to do, but meanwhile it’s up to me to try to create a climate in which most people feel they have a place."

Then how about asking the Episcopal Church's Anglo-Catholics how "safe" they feel. They are a minority who are being systemically marginalized and destroyed. All they are asking for is Alternative Episcopal Oversight and to be left alone. Instead, squads of femi-lesbian priests have descended on three dioceses to quiz them about their unwillingness to ordain women. Or what about the systematic marginalization that is now emerging of ECUSA's Evangelicals who decry the church's position on homosexuality, and because they are withholding money as a protest, they are being threatened with extinction by revisionist bishops.

If Griswold is in charge of the "climate" of ECUSA, it is pretty darn cold "climate" these days for the faithful in ECUSA, but thoroughly warm if not downright hot for the church's pansexualists. They can push and pass any resolution about sex they like and win, they have the votes.

GRISWOLD: "We’ve been a community of divergent interests held together by common prayer. We deal with shades of gray."

But those who disagree with Gene Robinson’s ordination say that Scripture very clearly prohibits homosexuality. There is not much "gray" about it.

GRISWOLD: "I don’t think the Scripture writers had any notion of homosexuality. My sense is their understanding was that everyone was heterosexual, and so you “behaved” in a homosexual fashion. In other words, it’s a free decision you would make. So you’re dealing with a reality that isn’t reflected in Scripture. Is this possibly an instance where we’ve learned something that takes us beyond the world of the Bible and therefore the texts used don’t really apply?

"Anglicans in this part of the world have always accepted the fact that there are different interpretations," says Griswold.

No one has exploded that myth more than Dr. Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Here is what he says about Griswold's interpretation of biblical homosexuality in an open letter to him, which can be found at Virtuosity's website www.virtuosityonline.org.

GAGNON: "With all due respect you [Griswold] are in error on all counts. First, there were many theories in the Greco-Roman world that posited something akin to modern sexual orientation theory. Philosophers, doctors, and moralists often attributed one or more forms of homosexual behavior, at least in part, to congenital factors.

And some of the same persons could still refer to such forms as "contrary to nature"-that is, given by nature but not in conformity with embodied existence or nature's well-working processes. Lifelong, exclusive participants in homosexual behavior were also widely known in the ancient world. Indeed, Paul's reference to the malakoi ("soft men," men who play the sexual role of females) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is one such instance.

Second, you assume that the absence of "choice" regarding sexual impulses absolves one of moral responsibility for the behavior arising from such impulses. Numerous sinful desires, sexual and otherwise, are not "chosen" in the sense of being manufactured willfully. That doesn't make them any less sinful-though it can and should inform our pastoral response. Who would choose to be a pedophile if it were a simple matter of choice? Some people find it extraordinarily difficult to be limited to a single sex partner; do they choose their sexual impulses? Some people grow up without an instinctive aversion to sex with close blood relations and then fall in love with one such relative; do they simply manufacture such feelings?

Paul describes sin itself in Romans 7 as an innate impulse, passed on by an ancestor figure, running through the members of the human body, and never entirely within human control. The very nature of sin is that it generates biologically related impulses. Why do you think a biological connection disqualifies an impulse from being sinful? Such thinking is patently un-biblical.

Third, biblical writers were certainly not limiting their condemnation of same-sex intercourse to particularly exploitative forms. Non- exploitative forms were known in Paul's day and had Paul wanted to limit his condemnation to exploitative forms he certainly could have done so.

The wording in Romans 1:24-27 is quite clear as regards what Paul found objectionable about same-sex intercourse: its same-sexness, persons seeking sexual integration with a non-complementary sexual same, persons erotically attracted to what they intrinsically are as sexual beings. This is sexual narcissism and/or sexual self-deception: a desire either for what one is or for what one wishes to be but in fact already is.

The intertextual echoes to Genesis 1:27 ("God made them male and female") and Genesis 2:24 ("For this reason a man shall . . . be joined to his woman/wife and the two shall become one flesh") in Romans 1:24- 27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, respectively, confirm that Paul had in view the male-female prerequisite ordained by God at creation. (Incidentally, so did Jesus when he appealed to the same two texts from Genesis as normative and prescriptive texts for human sexual relations [Mark 10:6-8].)

The beautiful image put forward in Genesis 2:18-24 is that of an original binary human split down the side into two sexually differentiated beings. If sexual relations are to be had, "one-flesh" sexual wholeness requires a re-merger of the two constituent parts produced by the splitting.

By "nature" in Romans 1:24-27 Paul meant the complementary structure of males and females still transparent in material creation-a category of thinking that transcends issues of love and commitment. The description in Romans 1:27 of males mutually gratifying themselves with other males does not suggest exploitation. Nor does the mention of female-female intercourse point us in the direction of a particularly exploitative form of same-sex intercourse.

The language in Romans 1:24-27 of being "given over" to preexisting desires and forsaking any heterosexual relations certainly suggests innate and exclusive passions for members of the same sex. Scripture is clearly condemning every form of same-sex intercourse. Biblical authors would no more have accepted a committed and loving homosexual union than they would have accepted a committed and loving adult incestuous union. Both types of unions are structurally incompatible: sex with sexual or familial sames.

Gagnon knocks Griswold right out of the ballpark on his simplistic understanding and interpretation of Scripture.

BELIEFNET.NET: "You’re probably read about the charge that the protesting church members are being funded by conservative foundations. What do you make of that charge?"

GRISWOLD: "Yes, it’s a political movement, not just a [church] movement. And I think the important thing is to be upfront about it. I think the money has been there for a long time—but I think the dynamic has just become clearer. Over time, certain things are simply ready to become public. The more energy that goes into these causes, the more is known about what is actually at their heart in terms of financial support.

BELIEFNET.NET: "Will you fight back with money?"

GRISWOLD: "I don’t think it’s a matter of fighting back, except by staying the course, and again and again saying we are a community of divergent points of view, grounded in common prayer".

This is blatantly untrue. A Virtuosity reader in the Diocese of Rio Grande wrote to say that he was shocked at the extent to which the Via Media crowd (ECUSA's revisionist response to orthodox dioceses) are getting assistance from ECUSA, both directly and through the Episcopal Church Foundation which is headquartered at 815 2nd Ave.

"My impression is that the Via Media groups have only become active within the last few months and only in dioceses where the bishop opposed Robinson. My impression, also, is that they each have the active support of ECUSA," he wrote Virtuosity.

And then comes the zinger.

GRISWOLD: "I have a spiritual director, and he works with me on what it means to be a faithful disciple. I’m as imperfect as any other human and I can be enraged, so it’s very important that I look at the question of What is God inviting me to do in this situation? In spite of what’s coming at me, I am called to be one who acts out of compassion and non-reactivity."

BELIEFNET.NET: "You sound like a Buddhist."

GRISWOLD: "Well, there are spiritual practices that are common to a number of traditions."

The truth is Griswold has moved way beyond Affirming Catholicism and the Church Fathers to his own Pink Panther theology, that is more pantheistic than orthodox. Many are now suggesting that Griswold is in fact no longer a Christian. They may well be right.

GRISWOLD: "One of the rules I’ve learned is dispossession. I can cling to nothing--and what has been the incredible gift is that the more is taken away from me in terms of security, ego gratification and all the rest of it – the more I am reduced to deep trust in Christ. People say, “You look well. How can this be?” They assume I’m in agony night and day. And I’m not. The other thing that’s helpful is the gym. So it’s exercise and prayer."

Many of the orthodox bishops are still laughing over the Circle Dance of Dispossession Griswold asked them all to dance once upon a time. Many of them now believe Griswold is dancing himself all the way to Hell, and they sure as hell don't want to follow him. That's a labyrinth too far. One can hardly blame them.

NOTE: If you are not receiving this from VIRTUOSITY, the Anglican Communion's largest biblically orthodox Episcopal/Anglican Online News Service, then you may subscribe FREE by going to: www.virtuosityonline.org. Virtuosity's website has been accessed by more than 700,000 readers in 45 countries on six continents. This story is copyrighted but may be forwarded electronically with reference to VIRTUOSITY and the author. No changes are permitted in the text.

END

Subscribe
Get a bi-weekly summary of Anglican news from around the world.
comments powered by Disqus
Trinity School for Ministry
Go To Top