A short article from SF reminded me of a similar experience with Niagara’s Bishop Michael Bird.
Bishop Michael was preaching in a local church when, during a Q&A period, someone asked him what his personal beliefs were regarding the Christian faith. His answer was that his belief was personal and, therefore, not something he wished to discuss. Our bishop could learn a few tricks in finessing constructive evasion from this answer by Bishop Beetge:
The most telling came toward the end of the session when a reporter who said he was shooting a documentary for “American television” tried to nail the bishop down on the question of homosexual behavior.
It was very difficult.
Bishop Beetge served on the Windsor Commission. He was loath to speak of his own opinion on the matter. He said, over and over again, in several different ways that the most important thing we can do is, and I am sure you can fill in the blank here, “sit down together”. He mentioned that the bible study group he attended that morning was very difficult. The sides are “hardening” he said. We must, he said, hold together in the midst of our tensions.
The reporter was not to be put off that easily. “What do you think personally though?”
The bishop continued to dissemble until he finally said that he was in the middle. He said that he can see the argument from both sides. He certainly sympathizes with those who feel they are not being included in the life of the church and he also can understand those who take a more conservative viewpoint. I cannot take a public position on either side of this.
“Is that what Jesus would do?” asked the reporter.
A good question, I thought, although the reporter seemed to be more sympathetic to Gene Robinson and Integrity
The bishop’s answer, however, displayed obfuscation of such practiced elegance that it could have only escaped the lips and originated in the mind of Anglican bishop.
“On the cross Jesus hung in the middle, between the earth and the sky, between humanity and God. In the same way, sometimes, the body of Christ must sometimes stand between two extremes for the sake of reconciliation.”
It just slipped out, effortlessly.
While I could certainly see what bishop Beetge is saying as deeply philosophical, the little man inside of me keeps on laughing his head off.
I usually agree with what the little man says.
[1] Walker
My little man tells me that I’d have to make penetrating enquiries to determine what the bishop sees as reconciliation.
The reconciliation that Christ’s blood gives us is with God. To posit that Christ is involved in some other kind of “reconciliation” between heresy and scriptural authority denigrates His sacrifice and limits His divinity.
Philosophical or just plain slick? There’s no middle on this one.
Peace,
Jim
“His answer was that his belief was personal and, therefore, not something he wished to discuss.” and this from a bishop in a supposedly “Christian” church
Can you imagine our founding fathers of our faith making statements like this.
Lets see.. Peter before the Sanhedrin in Acts 4
Peter answers their questions my belief is personal and, therefore, not something I wish to discuss.
Or Paul talking to the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians etc. and saying my belief is personal and, therefore, not something I wish to discuss.
Thank God this was not the case.