Walking Apart: A Parable

Comments

7 responses to “Walking Apart: A Parable”

1. 

   2006-03-04

   Todd Granger

   D.C., interesting parable, and perhaps applicable to the situation, until you reached the denouement.
   First, you lay the blame for refusing table fellowship fully on the Apples, not telling us whether any of the Blueberries were willing to meet at the restaurant halfway between.
   Second, you have the Apples denying table fellowship at their table to willing Blueberries. You do not allow for the possiblity that the Apples, whether some of them or all of them, would be perfectly and graciously willing for their Blueberry former travellers to join them at table in the Apple Inn, providing that the Blueberries do not play poker there.
   Third, and more to the point, two distinct inns, each with its own hostelry ethic, and a restaurant halfway between are not nearly analogous enough to the present crisis to be a potent and illustrative parable. Perhaps the same wayfaring group of people, but one part of whom (the Cardists) plan to create a gaming room in the one inn to which they are all proceeding, against the wishes of the rest of the travellers and the historical practice of the inn to which they commonly travel?
   The parable could more fully illustrate the situation by suggesting that this inn is but one of a group of inns, which hold in common not only their hospitality, hearty dinners and fine linens but also their refusal to allow cardplaying on the premises (a minor point, yes, but an important one); and add the further illustration of suggesting that this inn would lose its license in the hostelry association by allowing the creation of this gaming room for cardplaying?

   Reply
2. 

   2006-03-04

   D. C.

   Todd, thanks for the comment.
   1. As you obviously have seen, the denoument is the whole point. The question posed in the parable isn’t whether poker is right or wrong. I left that question in abeyance, just as I think the Anglican Communion should leave in abeyance the question whether lifelong same-sex unions are right or wrong.
   (FYI, personally I’m not a poker player. In fact, I’m not a gambler of any kind. That’s why I chose poker as the analogy: to try to put myself, if not in the shoes, at least somewhere near the mind, of those who disapprove of homosexual conduct.)
   2. In the parable, most of the “Cardists” headed for the Blueberry Inn and its card room — thanks for coining the name, incidentally — don’t themselves play poker. But by and large they accept and support their fellow travelers who do play, and they treat them as fully equal partners in their shared journey.
   (The parable doesn’t say so explicitly, but it implicitly assumes a poker game that’s friendly and for low stakes, a “social” game where no one gets hurt.)
   3. Then there’s the Anti-Cardist faction, all of whom are among those bound for the Hotel Apple. It’s important to note that not everyone headed for the Apple is necessarily an Anti-Cardist.
   None of the Anti-Cardists play even penny-ante poker; or if they do, they don’t admit it. Some will tell you that they used to play poker, but they saw the light and were reformed.
   4. It is definitely not the case that, as you suggest, the Anti-Cardists are willing to admit the Cardists to table fellowship at the Hotel Apple, as long as the Cardists refrain from playing poker there. Remember, most of the Cardists don’t play poker themselves at all.
   No, the Anti-Cardists are refusing fellowship to the Cardists solely because of the Cardists’ support for, and equal treatment of, the poker players.
   5. Incidentally, you say that I didn’t specify “whether any of the Blueberries were willing to meet at the restaurant halfway between.” Recall that it was one of the Blueberry group who originally proposed meeting at the restaurant in the first place.
   Some Cardists might indeed have refused to meet the Anti-Cardists for dinner. From the point of view of the parable, they would have stood in the same place as the Anti-Cardists who refused to sup with the Cardists.

   Reply
3. 

   2006-03-04

   Todd Granger

   D.C., quite obviously the morality of poker is not the issue in the parable; departure from traditional practice, and to some degree hospitality, are. (Likewise, for information’s sake, I do on occasion indulge in a game of poker with friends.)
   Regarding point number (4), supra, you dish your parable completely there and betray the tendentious framing of a parable that could otherwise be constructed in a thought-provoking way that challenges both Cardists and Anti-Cardists on this notion of “walking apart”.
   The fact is, this parable loses its applicability to the crisis in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion regarding same-sex blessings and non-celibate homosexual clergy and bishops precisely because there are reasserters/conservatives/Anti-Cardists who are perfectly willing to have table fellowship – both eucharistic and otherwise – with gay Christians and those who support same-sex blessings etc. so long as those blessings etc. are not part of our common life. I would go so far as to say that we represent the vast majority of conserving or reasserting Episcopalians and Anglicans. In fact, conserving Anglicans and Episcopalians have long knelt at communion rails with their gay brothers and sisters, many of them in committed relationships or otherwise, under the aegis of a practical “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy (see a comment by Andrew Carey that Kendall Harmon posted a few days ago).
   So, your table fellowship-denying Anti-Cardists are in fact not representative at all of conserving or traditionalist Anglicans in that respect, save perhaps for that small minority of “angry traditionalists” whom you seem to believe exhaustively represent conserving Anglicanism.
   As for the fifth point or observation, I should have written “whether any Blueberries but the one proposing the meeting”, as you rightly point out.

   Reply
4. 

   2006-03-04

   D. C.

   Todd writes:

   In fact, conserving Anglicans and Episcopalians have long knelt at communion rails with their gay brothers and sisters, many of them in committed relationships or otherwise, under the aegis of a practical “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy (see a comment by Andrew Carey that Kendall Harmon posted a few days ago).

   6. If I’m not mistaken, at the last gathering of the primates, ++Akinola and other so-called Global South bishops refused to take communion alongside ++Griswold. I also seem to remember, possibly incorrectly, that at the last several HoB meetings, +Duncan just “happened” not to participate in any Eucharists with ++Grisworld or other consenters to +VGR’s consecration.
   7. Kneeling at the rail besides a gay person under the aegis of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” hardly seems accepting and supportive.

   Reply
5. 

   2006-03-04

   Todd Granger

   D.C., I didn’t write, nor did I imply, that all conservative Anglicans nor all of their leaders will take communion with gay Christians.
   But I know many at the parish level who do, myself included. And I don’t mean to imply that this in and of itself is accepting and supportive, save accepting gay Christians as fellow sinners in need of conviction of sin, forgiveness, and sanctifying grace – like myself.

   Reply
6. 

   2006-03-20

   Brad Drell

   Too easy. The blueberries are walking away from the apples. They changed course.
   The problem with the parable is that, in reality, there is no restaurant in the middle.

   Reply
7. 

   2006-03-20

   D. C.

   Brad, what matters is the ultimate destination. The hotels along the way are there merely to provide service to travelers. The Apple contingent, by obsessing over the choice of hotels to the point of being willing to break up the group, are the ones choosing to walk apart.
   There is indeed a restaurant in the middle. It’s called the communion rail. We need a truce there.
   Thanks for commenting.

   Reply