package deals are cheaper: abortion & bundled doctrine

The first time I purchased a mac, way back in the late 80's, I discovered the concept of the "bundle deal":  put everything together in one package, and sell it all together.  You can explore what's in the box later, after you've begun to open it up.  I want to offer up a few reflections on some recent statements by two of our Bishops.  There is more in the box yet.

"Any final thoughts?"

"Planned Parenthood is an organization that I have always admired and respected. It does such extraordinarily fine work, and I'm very happy to be associated with it."

Rt Rev Gene Robinson, interviewed here.

"...we must challenge the condemnation by the Church throughout the centuries of such things as masturbation, birth control, abortion, and homosexuality."

Rt Rev Michael Ingham, article here.

One of the points I have tried to make in various conversations with colleagues and friends is that the issue of same sex blessings is part of a package deal.  What I say here is only one part of that package deal, but I find it no accident that both Bishops Robinson and Ingham draw public attention to their support of abortion - explicit on the part of Bishop Robinson, and implicit (at the very least) on the part of Bishop Ingham.

To those who have been telling me that this is only about "one issue", I can only say:  No, it isn't.  And to those who think that this issue is isolated and can be treated as a matter of pastoral practice, I would have to say:  this is a package deal, because the principles by which these leaders are arguing for SSB, are the same principles by which they are announcing their support for other issues.

Must one who supports same sex unions also be pro-abortion?  On the surface, the answer is obviously no.  Or rather, "not yet."  The thoughts of these two Bishops begin to draw the logical conclusions of their worldview.  What has happened?  The great virtues of "faithfulness and commitment" have been removed from the sphere of procreation (that is, making human beings who are in the image of God) and parenthood.  Where are these virtues now located, exclusively?

This suggests, then, that the primary criterion for a Christian sexual theology is not procreation but rather faithfulness and commitment. This is the supreme message of the life of Jesus and ought to be the principal standard for Christian sexual ethics – not sexual orientation, not propagation, nor even marriage. Fidelity to one another, to one’s partner, and to God, respect for the dignity of every human being and for the sacredness of the human body, a rejoicing in human sexuality as both gift and expression of divine creativity – these are the elements of a more positive approach to sexuality that the Church needs to pursue.

Bishop Ingham (ibid)

I find it ironic that the Bishop mentions "a rejoicing in human sexuality as both gift and expression of divine creativity", yet fails to affirm explicitly the creativity of heterosexual marriage in the making of people.   [Of course, those who are married with small children know that you need to be a lot more creative than when it was just the two of you.]  How can one argue for creativity, and yet say that the Church must challenge moral basis for abortion?

Let me take just one specific example, for it is in specifics that our lives are lived.  To challenge the Church's traditional teaching on abortion, to argue that Planned Parenthood is a fine organization, is at the same time to deny the humanity of at least a certain group of people.  Let us narrow this down to genetic screening.  Let us agree that a wholesale approval of abortion includes as a subset abortion based on genetic screening.

("faithfulness and commitment")

Is it within the "Jesus' teaching" to say:  "I will have this child if I think she will turn out like this, but I will have an abortion if I think she will turn out like that"?  Does not such a choice, in the context of "challenging the Church's traditional teaching on... abortion" fly in face of this thing proclaimed as "unconditional love"?  How are we to learn this love?

("Over and over again, in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament, we learn of God’s faithfulness, and God’s unconditional love")

I am not convinced by the language of faithfulness and commitment and unconditional love which I have seen and read.  I might venture into the sphere of language myself, and coin a new term:

trisomophobia - an irrational fear and hatred of persons with Down Syndrome.  Trisomophobia is often expressed as support for abortion, including the 88-92% abortion rate in the case of detecting the presence of Trisomy 21 via genetic testing.  See, inter alia

Caroline Mansfield, Suellen Hopfer, Theresa M. Marteau (1999). "Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review". Prenatal Diagnosis 19 (9): 808-812.  PMID 10521836 ; David W. Britt, Samantha T. Risinger, Virginia Miller, Mary K. Mans, Eric L. Krivchenia, Mark I. Evans (1999). "Determinants of parental decisions after the prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome: Bringing in context". American Journal of Medical Genetics 93 (5): 410 - 416

I must go for few moments, and tidy this post up later.  Someone made in the image of God requires my faithfulness, commitment, and unconditional love.  One who has a hard time speaking is requiring someone with a voice to speak for her.

Words are
power;
speechlessness,
an endless abyss;
garbled speech,
a target for dishonor;
persistent rotten storytelling,
a huge annoyance;
boring tapes that demean my image.

You whose language flows
coherently,
whose ideas sparkle like wine
on the tongue,
remember your gift
and use it well,
for me.

Craig Romkema,  poet
writing through autism
from his collection: "Embracing the Sky:  Poems Beyond Disability" .

 

Comments

[Susan]

Amen and Amen, Joseph. Please keep speaking for those who have no voice. Soldier on Please God in the lonely field of our drifting Anglican Church of Canada. You have the ability to do so and the respect of your peers, so you have a voice. I do not. Please keep speaking your voice. Someone has to keep relentlessly speaking up and shining the light of Christ on our absurdities.

Will you take on the absurdity of our national church supporting and promoting pantheism and Gaia worship to our Anglican young people through General Synod's EcoJustice Committee's Environment Justice Camp? See the site (on every Edmonton Diocesan Synod Scene for weeks) and, oh please, take the time to check out one of the "resources" listed there, "Celebrating Creation". Read every single word. It makes me weep that this heretical garbage is being promoted by our national church and by our Diocese. I posted something on this elsewhere when it first came out but that post was deep-sixed by the blog host. Wonder why. Is it not on to question Almighty General Synod and All it's Works?

[joseph]

Susan, then I suppose you would be a bit dismayed to follow the links on the Diocesan announcments to this:
A non-theistic way of prayer in the Jesus tradition...

begin quote:
author: Rev. Dr. Charles Bidwell
With revision, I can still pray as Jesus indicated we could:

"My Creator (soul's Source, spirit's Destination, Ground of Our Being, etc.)
in whom/which is heaven, or within which we can find heaven (as co-creators)
we revere/respect you
We will work to see your divine intent become a reality where we live.
We will work to see that everyone has the food they need to live and have health and energy to contribute to the welfare of Earth and its life systems.
We sense that we are forgiven for our admitted shortcomings to the extent that we art able to forgive others their failures.
We recognize the presence of evil in our world and strive to avoid being a part of it as well as pointing it out whenever we are aware of it.
We work for these changes in our lives and in the lives of others in the spirit of Jesus who cared for all those who were unjustly treated or oppressed.
May we make these things so."

Note that at no time does this indicate a petition to an external force to intervene and do the work which only we can do.

end quote.

[anthony]

any reason why my comment didnt show up

[joseph]

no idea, anthony. "sameo" had the same problem last week (said it had 'timed out' before it would publish). you could send it to me via email & I could swing it though the site admin to have it posted.

all that being said, I find great irony in the language and arguments presented in favour of the inclusion one group, which seem to then lead to the absolute exclusion of another group.

I am tempted to say that what this means is that those who are aborted are denied the sacrament of baptism, and thus are "excluded from the full life of the church".

[Ed McNeill]

Hi Joeseph, I was cruising Standfirm tonight, went to Drell's descant, followed an interesting link and WHOA saw your name. 4 degrees of separation! Poor Kevin. I enjoyed your blog and discovered I'm more out of touch with Edmonton than I thought. If you get a momr\ent and are inclined send me your phone number. I'd love to talk with you. [email protected]

[joseph]

One blog to rule them all...

Ed, everyone who surfs the net is eventually drawn to felix hominum by some mysterious force...