What goes around, comes around.
I’ve read recently about the abuse of conservative speakers on college campuses by pseudo-liberals (though they would refer to themselves as Liberals) who demand that the invitations be withdrawn or that the conservatives be refused the right to speak on their campuses. These people are not real Liberals, mind you, else there would be an allowance for a place at the table of all perspectives. They refuse to defend the right of the people with whom they disagree to speak their minds or present differing perspectives. They, frankly, are more like Fascists (or some other word for those who attempt to control thought and speech) than Liberals because they want to control the outcome, the thoughts of others, the perspectives that are presented to other students. They want to shut up the conservatives and the right of their perspectives to be argued or debated. They want the control to determine what is disseminated and argued. The problem is, if they do not defend the right for others’ perspectives to be presented or others’ freedom of speech or thought, then there will be a point in time when they do not hold the power and their own perspectives and thoughts could well be suppressed.
There is the old saying, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it!” In my opinion, this is a very traditional Anglican way of viewing things – this is how we have traditionally been. What comes around, goes around. If these pseudo-liberals attempt to suppress or deny rights to the conservatives, there will be a time when they need protection for their rights and perspectives and nay well not receive it.
Archbishop Akinola and others demand that the American House of Bishops (HoB) pass resolutions and change the-way-they-think to align with his (their) theological and interpretive perspective. He does not want other perspectives to receive the same light-of-day or right to be presented or argued or debated. To allow such things would be to deny the faith. There is no reason for debate, because the case is settled and there is no reason to revisit the traditional understanding. This is not truly Conservative, but pseudo-conservatism. A true Conservative, while striving to conserve what is, also understands strongly that we must defend the rights of those with whom we disagree else our own liberties may well be denied us at some point, and true conservatives defend the right of people to believe and think according to their own consciences. That’s why I am far more conservative than liberal.
The problem we are faced with is groups of people, whether pseudo-liberals or pseudo-conservatives, who demand that their perspective be the only right one (whether it has historical precedent or not – and historical precedent is not the only criteria of judgment for we know that historical precedent has been horribly wrong in the past) and that all others must be subjugated. Too many people want absolute uniformity and agreement and cannot abide by differences of opinion or perspective – pseudo-conservatives and pseudo-liberals.
This kind of perspective in the history of the Church is known as the Inquisition. There has never been uniformity in the Church – and we see this from the very beginning with the arguments between Peter and Paul, and between Paul and James. To think that we all must believe the same thing to be a Christian and to demand a uniformity of thought or belief whether among our Bishops or pew sitters over issue of anything, even homosexuality, leads us to be neither Conservative or Liberal, but Fascist(?). There has developed among us of fear of difference and an inability to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty. There is a demand for fact, when fact is not possible because we live by faith.
I’m sorry, folks, but we do not have all knowledge and we will not until we see Him face-to-face. In light of that, we should be wrapped in humility as we approach one another and the arguments we are engaged in. Remember, too, that the judgment with which we use will be the judgment with which we will be judged.
What goes around, comes around.
The demand of Akinola and of our own American agitators is that the HoB capitulate and “repent” of their own consciences and conform to the way Akinola thinks about the faith, the interpretation of Scripture, and issues such as homosexuality. It is simply not possible if we want a democratic-style episcopal ecclesiology. It will mean that Akinola and company will go their own way, because they do not want distention, difference, or will not allow a true respect for contrary ideas or perspectives – even the right of argument over them.