The seventy-sixth General Convention of the Episcopal Church made headlines last week for moving forward on same-sex blessings and officially opening its doors for partnered homosexuals to serve as priests and bishops. Stacy Sauls, the Episcopal bishop of Lexington and a close associate of the presiding bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori, argued that it was long past time to do it: Over thirty years ago, he said, the church had placed pastoral compassion over Scripture, tradition, and the teachings of Jesus to permit remarriage after divorce, and it would be nothing less than hypocritical for the church not to do likewise for gay and lesbian people.
There is a certain logic to this, of course. If we’re going to set aside the teaching of Jesus for ourselves, shouldn’t we do the same for others? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” as someone once said. According to Bishop Sauls, this was the most important point he made at the convention. Arguably, it was the most important point anyone in attendance made. The Episcopal Church has now, quite definitively, decided to step out on its own, away from Scripture, tradition, and the rest of the Anglican communion. It was a bold and brave step, for with it the church has decided that it is now a church that takes its own counsel, answerable only to God. No doubt it was a matter of prayerful discernment and conscience for many, and no doubt many will shy away from drawing out the full implications of their decision. But the implications are there nonetheless. It is a brave new thing for the Episcopal Church, a brave new church on its own in the world.
The two key resolutions, D025 and C056, were passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of the convention, the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops. The first resolution, D025, effectively gave dioceses the green light to elect bishops in partnered homosexual relationships, thus overturning the commitment of the 2006 convention to “exercise restraint” in doing so. The second resolution, C056, committed the church to develop rites of blessing for same-sex unions with the goal of bringing draft versions for approval at the next convention in 2012. In the meantime, the resolution encouraged dioceses to develop and use rites of their own, with the expectation that such on-the-ground experience will be of value in creating a set of official, churchwide liturgies in the near future.
As such, the two resolutions represent a clear and purposeful departure from the requests made of the Episcopal Church by the rest of the Anglican communion, as expressed repeatedly by all of the official bodies of global Anglicanism over the past several years. Contradicting requests for a moratorium on bishops in same-sex relationships, Resolution D025 asserts that “God has called and may call” persons in such relationships to all of the ordained ministries of the church. And, in the face of requests not to authorize public rites of blessing for same-sex unions, Resolution C056 explicitly calls for their development and authorizes bishops to perform them on a trial basis in their dioceses. It is, in short, a clear victory for those such as Bishop Sauls who have argued for the national autonomy of the Episcopal Church and the need to move forward regardless of Anglican communion requests.
That is, at least, the straightforward interpretation of the resolutions, as understood by media outlets such as the New York Times (“Episcopal Vote Reopens a Door to Gay Bishops,” “Episcopal Bishops Give Ground on Gay Marriage”), the BBC (“US Church Drops Gay Bishops Ban”), Reuters (“Episcopal Vote Widens Anglican Split”), and the Washington Post (“Episcopal Bishops Can Bless Gay Unions”). It is, additionally, how they were understood by Anglican bishop N.T. Wright (“The Americans Know This Will Lead to Schism,”), conservative groups such as Fulcrum and the Anglican Communion Institute, and the ECUSA gay rights lobby, Integrity. Susan Russell, the president of Integrity, celebrated achieving a “clean sweep" on their legislative goals, and justifiably so.
But be that as it may, the official organs of the Episcopal Church have insisted that no matter what it might look like to everyone else, actually nothing much has changed. The two ranking officers of the church, presiding bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori and House of Deputies president Bonnie Anderson, wrote in an open letter to Rowan Williams that “nothing in [Resolution D025] goes beyond what has already been provided under our constitution and canons for many years.” By that, they mean to say that since church canons already stipulate that the ordination process is open to all persons regardless of sexual orientation, and since Resolution D025 asserts that future bishops will be considered by following canonical guidelines, they have done nothing new. The 2006 resolution, they note, asked for restraint in granting “consent” to the election of partnered homosexual bishops, and since the new resolution does not mention consent, this has not actually been overturned.
If that sounds like a distinction without a difference, that may be because it is. Indeed, they admit that “it remains to be seen” how the new resolution will be interpreted by dioceses, and that some dioceses will likely understand it as granting them latitude to consent to the election of partnered gay bishops. And no wonder, because that is precisely the point of the resolution. The General Convention, which Bishop Jefferts Schori and Bonnie Anderson insist is the highest governing body in the church, has asserted unequivocally that God calls partnered homosexuals to all of the ordained ministries of the church, and it has asked the church to discern who is called to the episcopacy in this context. Bishop Sauls, for his part, argued in an official church press conference that there isn’t; that is, until they decide to consecrate another partnered gay bishop. It is, to put it mildly, difficult to see how the rest of the Anglican world will interpret this as a positive response to their requests.
As for same-sex blessings, Bishop Christopher Epting, the church’s deputy for ecumenical and interreligious relations, has asserted that despite Resolution C056 the convention actually “did not authorize any public rites” for the blessing of same-sex unions and so did not, in fact, contravene the requests made by the global Anglican instruments of unity. It is notable that this argument was not even attempted by Bishop Jefferts Schori and Bonnie Anderson in their letter. The word game here in play is to insist that while they were asked not to authorize any churchwide rites, no one said anything about unleashing bishops to make and use rites on their own. In short, Bishop Epting’s argument not only fails on its own terms (see here), but it is difficult even to take seriously.
All in all, one is left with the spectacle of the Episcopal Church’s leadership trying desperately to convince the Anglican communion and countless onlookers, by the artful use of lawyerly nuance and political hair-splitting, that they did not do what they did.
Arguably, this is the worst of all possible worlds. While one might wish that the church had not decided to leave behind biblical sexual norms, it is by now clear that this is the position of the great majority of Episcopal leadership. As such, there would have been genuine integrity in stating forthrightly that the Episcopal Church disagrees with its Anglican brothers and sisters, and that, out of their prayerful discernment and sense of God’s justice, they cannot comply with the Anglican world’s requests.
But that is not the path the Episcopal Church’s leaders have chosen. Instead, they have professed their heartfelt desire to remain full members of the Anglican communion, but on none but their own terms. As the Windsor Continuation Group and many others in the Anglican world have warned time and time again, the bonds of trust in Anglicanism have been frayed far past the breaking point in recent years. Many Anglicans around the world no longer believe that they can trust the Episcopal Church to say what it means and do what it says, and the actions of the seventy-sixth General Convention, along with the present stance of church leadership, will almost certainly add fuel to the flame of Anglican discord and mistrust. Honesty and clarity would have been better, but it appears too late for that now. Even for those such as Rowan Williams who have bent over backward to give the most charitable reading of the Episcopal Church’s actions, this may be a bridge too far.
Rowan Williams, for his part, is widely expected to issue a statement in the near future on the Episcopal Church’s actions. In an Anglican communion that seems ever closer to spinning out of control, many are looking to him right now for clarity and guidance. In the past, Archbishop Williams has spoken of “constituent” and “associate” membership to describe the coming covenanted reality of the Anglican communion, with the constituent membership comprised of those churches and dioceses who covenant to walk together on matters of faith and morals, and an associate group of Anglicans who decide instead to place a higher premium on national autonomy. Many hope that Williams will apply this language to the present situation, at least provisionally.
So too, many hope that Williams will reaffirm his commitment to the Anglican Covenant in its present form, the Ridley-Cambridge draft, as well as reconsider the Episcopal Church’s role in the continued covenant process. Given the actions of General Convention, it is clear that serious questions must be raised about the extent of the Episcopal Church’s commitment to the process in the first place.
Finally, the many Episcopal bishops and parishes that have long sought faithfully to remain Anglican are now hoping that Williams, along with the Anglican primates, will give them a place to stand and a way to move forward with clarity and hope. Both clarity and hope are in short supply right now in such dioceses as Dallas, Albany, and South Carolina, not to mention traditionally minded parishes in places like Philadelphia and Lexington. Many ordinary, faithful Episcopalians who seek to remain Anglican are worried about what the future may hold. In short, the Communion Partner bishops and rectors are hoping to find a true partner in the archbishop of Canterbury.
What then of the Episcopal Church’s future? With regard to its continuing relations with the larger Anglican communion, its leadership has a choice to make—either honesty and clarity about their decision to walk apart, or continued obfuscation and maneuvering. With respect to its own members who still seek to walk together with Canterbury and the rest of the covenanted Anglican world, the church’s leaders have a choice to make as well. Either they can graciously allow conservative Episcopalians to do what is necessary to walk with the rest of the Anglican world, or they can follow the imperial road of majority tyranny, coercion, and lawsuits.
As for whatever is left of the Episcopal Church after the dust settles, the future is unclear. By all indices, the church is graying fast and shrinking faster, attracting precious few youth and young families, its progressive reputation notwithstanding. One of the buried stories of the seventy-sixth General Convention is its decision to make drastic cuts to the church budget, including its entire evangelism department. Much of this, of course, is attributable to the economic downturn, but some of it is not—just enough of it to be disturbing. If present trends hold, in the not-so-distant future many of its members will be either in nursing homes or cemeteries, with devastating effects on the numerous small dioceses and parishes that are just barely holding on. And in far, far too many places, especially the seminaries, theological depth and immersion in the Scriptures and the catholic tradition is a thing of the past.
In short, the sad parallels to be drawn with the shriveled, largely post-Christian fate of the United Church of Christ are there without number. Of course, the winds of revival, mission, and theological rigor may yet return one day to the Episcopal Church. Even now, there remain vibrant congregations, exciting scholars, and hopeful young people who believe in the church’s future. And the counsel of Gamaliel still holds true. But against such great odds, it is a brave soul indeed who would entrust her soul to the General Convention and take the Episcopal Church’s future and faith as her own.
For such a small church to venture forth from Scripture’s norm, to leave behind the faith of its fathers, to live at the very razor’s edge of all of catholic Christendom, whether Anglican or no—whatever this is, it at least requires courage. And no doubt there are many within her number who truly and genuinely possess it. However Erastian, bourgeois, and politicized Episcopal conventions may seem these days, one hopes that there are at least some left who are willing to say: This is the will of God, and may God judge me ever so severely if I lead his sheep astray. Any who do not feel the force of this are both foolhardy and fools, damnably so. Those who do feel it run the risk of hubris, of taking God’s place for their own. But those who take their stand with fear and trembling, having prayerfully discerned the mind of Christ, and act in conscience out of love for their brothers and sisters are, I do not doubt, truly brave. It is only, one hopes, a very brave new church that would set off on its own, a lonely new prophet in a brave new world.
Jordan Hylden, a former junior fellow at First Things, is a graduate student at Duke Divinity School.
Comments:
My answer: they have been making progress for decades, if you note the dwindling numbers of members. The more this church wanders from its Scriptural and "Traditional" moorings, the less relevant it becomes. As it approaches absolute irrelevancy, there will be no need to try to reconcile. One need not reconcile with a non-entity.
What are we all personally going to do? Watch and pray. The temptations which affect the Episcopal leaders are all too common for all of us. Even with the Episcopal Church out of the picture, divisions remain deep in Christianity. Pray for the gift of faith.
The seeds of destruction are planted at birth, when Henry sought the authority from parliament to lead his church, he must have recognized, that if the authority came from parliament, it was a dangerous precedent.
Although, the Episcopalian position is that re-marriage of a divorcee was granted thirty (30) years ago, it actually was the reason for their existence. The subsequent exceptions for compassion overriding the scripture and the words Jesus himself are only a natural progression, of the growth of the institution from the seed that was planted?
This is first time I have felt strongly enough to respond.
Large-scale epic events which unfold over continuums of time, are typically understood from two perspectives – both with validity and both with limitations.
The first perspective of interest would be that of the “macro” – the large brush strokes which are required to digest such events. I would characterize Mr. Hyldon’s well written article as such. This article combined with many others written on the same topic from alternative perspectives (such as Bishop Neil Alexander’s This Far By Grace) contribute to a thorough and thoughtful 360 degree comprehensive understanding of the complex issues that the “Brave” Episcopal Church is currently undertaking.
The second perspective of interest would be that of the “micro” – the finer brush strokes which provide us with more detailed understanding, insights into decision making and experience which cannot be understood from 40,000 feet.
I am a member of what Mr. Hyldon described as …”a vibrant congregation(s), (with) exciting scholars, and hopeful young people who believe in the church's future…”. We come together on Sundays and throughout the week to worship, give thanks, and be present with God. If you polled any subset of our congregation and asked them what defines them in their Episcopalian faith, I think you would hear words like “tradition”, “scripture”, “ceremony” as well as words like “community”, “inclusion” and “rational thought”. I don’t think you would hear anyone say that “homosexuality” plays much of a role in anything we do as Episcopalians. We come together as a community to follow Christ. It’s pretty simple.
I have engaged in periodic salons with people of faith to discuss how homosexuality is addressed in the bible. While not a biblical scholar (I do have great respect for people like yourself who have committed their lives to better understand the Word of God), my readings have lead me here – While not completely dismissing the laws of the Old Testament, such as those found in Leviticus, as Christians we do define ourselves as a New Testament people. As such, the references to homosexuality in the New Testament (mostly from Paul’s letters) can be categorized in one of two ways: 1) sex between men and boys 2) sex between two men or two women with someone other than their married spouse. I don’t know anyone who would disagree with the “UnGodliness” of these two points.
Over the period that the bible was written there was never a cultural opportunity for men (or women) to marry. The gender roles were too tightly defined. If two men married who would cook the meals? While I am cognizant of the pedantic nature of such an example, I use it to illustrate the micro versus macro nature of the saga of homosexuality and Scripture. The larger philosophical arguments sometimes miss the realities of life on the ground.
In conclusion, I don’t think that the acceptance of homosexuals in monogamous, committed relationships represent a threat to my spiritual community. And, the larger saga of homosexuality and scripture is not over. I think the Episcopal Church has become a serendipitous leader in the discussion – one in which all faiths at some point will have to engage.
I became a Christian through the Episcopal Church, and I'm very grieved over the events at the General Convention. I now have to find a new church. What has been very hurtful throughout the past 20 years is the abuse and derision heaped upon the EC from Christians of other denominations. The enemy seems to have targeted the EC more than any other denomination in the United States, both from within and without. Has anyone bothered to ask why? Could it be that it was doing something right? Does anyone remember Dennis Bennett and the wonderful Charismatic Renewal in the early 60's, before it started in any of the other mainline denominations? I heard a lot of criticism form other Christians, and I found myself defending the more conservative episcopal parishes as deriders called us heretics. However, I never came accross anyone who was as grieved as I was, and offered to pray for us. There was only a sense of triumphant superiority. This was only helping the enemy, and now we truly have a heretical, apostate EC. My hope is that, where there is a Christain death, there is a resurrection. "When the enemy comes in like a flood, the Holy Spirit raises a banner." Please pray for the newly formed ACNA; it is already under attack by the EC. Please, can we have some articles discussing the struggles and hopes of our brothers and sisters in the newly formed ACNA? Thank you.
You might be wondering what we ought to do about gays, then: How can we treat them right if they can't get married? I don't have an answer that will satisfy you, because I don't believe that it's ever acceptable to have homosexual sexual activity. But if they abstain from that then I think they are doing as well as we can expect.
The Episcopal church has in a rather cowardly way merely caved to the secular ethos, while the Catholic Church is bravely standing up for a hard truth. Jordan Hylden is a charitable soul who needs to face this issue more squarely.
I'd like to respond first to Jennifer Priestly. The Episcopal Church has indeed become a serendipidous provoker of discussion, but because of the provocation the discussion usually generates more heat than light. Scriptural proof texts are often thrown around without getting to the inner reason of the evidence. From my perspective, what your argument from the lack of cultural readiness for gay marriage in the Old Testament cannot explain is why Scripture has no single instance of God's relationship to Israel described in terms of a homosexual relationship. I would have expected God to challenge stifling gender roles that got in the way of this development. Of course all sorts of things could be said in response to this (something along the line of saying that God accomodated old school gender roles in the way that he accomodated the Patriarchs' polygomy for a time). What I want to argue based on classes that I've taken with Ephraim Radner on human sexuality recently, and on his excellent commentary on Leviticus, is that abstract concepts of love, complementarity, mutuality, dependency, relationality, self-sacrifice, etc., that function as platonic forms that can be participated in by various couples (heterosexual, homosexual, polyamorous, even between masters and their pets) actually ignore the fact that the analogy for God's relationship to His people works from the bottom up. That is, it is the unique characteristic of heterosexual marriages that makes the analogy possible in the first place. The unique characteristic, all of my Catholic friends will be happy to find out, is procreation. It is only the distinction between male and female and the fruitfulness and "labour" (both Adam and Eve's) of the bridging of this gap that was adequate to the task of imaging the Son of God's costly procreative expenditure of blood on behalf of his bride.
In response to Michael Horvath I would say that if the seed of destruction was was Henry's sin of schism, then I as an Anglican accept God's judgment. On the other hand, if the seed was a particular political idea that deterministically sprouted, I reject the metaphor since I believe history is about sin and righteousness not fate. Too often theologians try to solve a problem by tracing things back to a fatal slip up in the realm of ideas rather than through simple acts of sin. Besides, Radner has also hinted in a paper presented to Benedict XVI last spring (in a book called "The Pontificate of Benedict XVI: Its Premises and Promises") that Locke and William of Orange had far more effect on Anglican polity and church-state relations than did Henry. The outdated Henry argument should be put to bed and real Anglican scholars should be addressed rather than relying on old Catholic cliches. It is unfortunate that ten years after writing "The End of the Church: A Pneumatology of Christian Division in the West" there has been no serious Roman Catholic engagement (that I know of, including R.R. Reno's conversion story in First Thing's here) with Radner's attempt to cast the problem of reunion in terms of penitance rather than trying to tweak the fatalistic flow of doctrinal develpment one way or the other. The old ecumenical movement had its triumphs, but it hasn't got us any further toward reunion by the latter path. Despite her sins and the confused state of the Church more generally, however, the Gomer of Anglicanism has still given birth to children through the spent life of her missionaries (whose life expectancy at the beginning of the CMS was only 5 years). Could it be that the sin of division has mutilated the life of the Roman Catholic church as well? No doubt if any of the scattered members of the Church are at all fruitful these days it is because we have a King who mercifully counts our sins against Himself. No matter how far they slide, the Levite's concubine of the Episcopal church is an image of warning and repentance to all of us, Anglican and Catholic.
But the spirit is indeed afoot. For anyone seriously seeking a historic and apostolic church the easy and respectable catholic-lite option is off the table. I had traveled from protestantism to the Anglican church and was content there for a few years, but as of a few years ago it was clear that the journey was not over. For anyone seriously pursuing the truth the Anglican church was, and certainly is now, clearly nothing but a half-way house at best--not the sort of place to set up residence. Onwards to a church were the gates of Hell won't be surrendered to by popular vote.
"In the beginning......" He created them male and femal and told them to be fruitful and multiply. That part of creation and that command only includes a man and a woman in union. It implicitly precludes any other pairings or groupings and directly addresses "life on the ground."
Furthermore, Christ referred to Himself as the bridegroom and the Church (female) as his bride. Again, highlighting the male and female connection and implicitly excluding any other matches.
I don't find the wriggle room others believe exists in the gay marriage and gay union discussion without conctadicting these two Biblical references.
Thanks much for the comments. I'll try to answer them in reverse order:
--Jennifer, thanks for your kind and thoughtful post. Like you, I'm an "active and practicing Episcopalian," and I've had the blessing of worshiping at several great parishes. It sounds like your parish is an excellent, faithful place. I'm glad to hear it. That's why I was careful to mention that the Episcopal Church still has many places, and many people, of vibrant faith and committed discipleship.
I welcome your discussion of the biblical witness concerning homosexual practice as well. For my part, and after studying the matter, I've come away convinced that scholars like Richard Hays, NT Wright, and Robert Gagnon are correct in their judgment that the Scriptures present us with a moral vision that sees human sexuality as made for the coming-together of men and women in committed, lifelong partnerships, directed toward mutual love, the care and nurturing of children, and and upbuilding of Christ's church and the wider human community. It is, I think, only in that context-- that is, in the context of a positive theological vision of what human sexuality is for-- that we can understand the unequivocal witness of Scripture against homosexual practice. And although I am familiar with the arguments you made about the meaning of the biblical witness, I do not think in the end that they hold (again, convinced here by Hays, Gagnon, and others). Particularly, I don't think they hold when seen in light of the larger biblical vision of sexuality, in which the complementarity of male and female and the intrinsic connection between the gift of sexuality and the gift of new life is clear.
But that said, Jennifer, like I said, I really do welcome discussion of issues like those you raised. Such discussions take the biblical witness seriously, and if ordered toward the authority of the Scriptures and the intent to read and live them truly in our churches today, they are not only good but essential. But as I'm sure you also saw from my article, the substance of my concern lies elsewhere. If it really were the case that (let's say) the sort of discussion we were having were of the sort that scholars such as Rowan Williams, Richard Hays, Oliver O'Donovan, and Eugene Rogers have carried on, I'd be happy as a clam. But sadly, that has not been the case. It's not that I wish that the discussion rose to the level of theological erudition as demonstrated by Rowan Williams-- among average folks like you and me, that's just not possible. What I wish is that the discussion was characterized by a genuine attention to the authoritative biblical witness, and to what marriage (which we have always spoken of highly in Anglicanism, even as "established by God in creation" and signifying, perhaps sacramentally, the union between Christ and his Church!) and human sexuality mean theologically. But I fear that is not the case. Far, far, FAR too often, you hear what we hear from Bishop Sauls-- that we're going against Scripture and the teaching of Jesus because it's the "pastoral" or the "just" thing to do.
We can't do that and be a church, Jennifer! It's THAT, much more than the issue of homosexuality itself, that concerns me. I wish to God that we were fighting over another issue. Homosexual people don't deserve to be beaten up like punching bags in endless church squabbles. But this is the issue that the times have given us. And much of the Episcopal Church's leadership-- and I choose my words carefully here-- has chosen the path charted by Bishop Sauls, away from Scripture, tradition, our Anglican brothers and sisters, and set off on their own. I wrote this article, in part, because I don't know that everyone in the church realizes the magnitude of what they're doing, nor the implications of it.
Now, that leads into Joe's question. Yes, Joe, I actually do think that there are some Christians who have indeed discerned that God is calling them here, and have taken their stand conscientiously and prayerfully with fear and trembling. No, I do not think they are correct in their judgement. But there are, I think, some people who have taken this stand, and if they have done it in this way, then I do not doubt that there are some such people who can be credited with the virtue of courage, no matter if they are wrong in their judgment. What I fear, however, is that there are far too few people who have discerned in this way and taken this kind of stand. That's why I warned, in the last paragraph, of foolishness and hubris. And I think this issue is especially dangerous in this regard, precisely because of the witness of Scripture, tradition, and the rest of Anglicanism and catholic Christianity. If we were talking about (let's say) whether or not only bishops can bestow Confirmation, it'd be a whole different story.
Ron: Yes, and William Murchison has an excellent new book, Mortal Follies, that argues that this is precisely the question facing the Episcopal Church. I highly recommend it. I've written a short review for FT.
Paul: The argument I cited from Bishop Sauls is, more or less, that Scripture's claims are outdated and plain wrong. Not everyone in the church thinks that, but a very worrying number of people do, and it's precisely that (as I said above) that concerns me so.
Michael: Yes, the question of authority in Anglicanism has a long pedigree. It's very useful, I think, to see the entire present squabble as stemming from unresolved questions about authority and the nature of the church that Anglicanism has never answered. If you're interested, I wrote a piece last summer in the FT magazine ("What Lambeth Wrought, Oct. '08) that deals with this.
Joe: Ephraim Radner is probably the best voice on this. For him, the Episcopal Church is undergoing a time of God's judgment. (He thinks that about all churches, but particularly the Episcopal Church comes in for his analysis.) For my part, I genuinely hope that our brothers and sisters in other mainline Protestant churches (the UMC, let's say) will learn from the debacle that has been the Episcopal Church over the past several years.
Adam: No, this past convention wasn't a sudden move by any means. I do think it was decisive and pivotal, but it had a long history. Bishop Pike was, by now, a long time ago. Bishop Spong's hoopla was over a decade ago by now. We've been dysfunctional for a long, long time. Something had to give. I'm only thankful that it happened at a time when the majority of the Communion and its Archbishop of Canterbury (so I hope and pray!) have the vitality and the will to do something about it.
And that leads into your question, Jody. What am I, personally, going to do? Well, right now I'm doing an internship at an excellent Episcopal parish (Church of the Incarnation) in the diocese of Dallas. For quite a while now, I've supported the ACI-Communion Partners plan as the best way forward in the church, and I still do. What it means, in essence, is that by signing onto the proposed Anglican Covenant, we'll be tied in a substantive, structural way to the worldwide Anglican Communion, covenanting to walk together with them in discerning the mind of Christ as we pray, worship, and read the authoritative Scriptures in common. I wrote in the article of my fears about entrusting my soul, or anyone else's, to the General Convention of an autonomous Episcopal Church, given its apparent determination to set aside the authorities of the Bible, the tradition of Christian orthodoxy, and the fellowship of the Anglican Communion and the larger church catholic. But I have no such fears about walking together with the vibrant faith of Anglicans in Africa and Asia, the tradition and scholarship of the Church of England, and other covenanted Anglican Christians around the globe. In fact, I'm excited by the prospect, and very hopeful about the future of Anglicanism.
Right now, I think the best place for me to work toward that future is alongside the Communion Partners within the Episcopal Church. And I probably should have sounded that note more strongly in my article-- it was long already, and I've said it elsewhere.
That said-- people like me really do stake an awful lot on being joined to the rest of the Communion through the covenant. Otherwise, I'm afraid of how I'll be shaped and formed by the Episcopal Church. Institutions, especially churches, shape us in more ways than we know. I'm hoping for direction and guidance from Canterbury right now, and the Primates soon. And I'm not the only one. With them, I'm hopeful about the prospects of a place like the diocese of Dallas. Without them-- well, everything I said in my article applies. And I'm not the only one to think that.
For those like myself in orthodox parishes trapped in an increasingly heterodox diocese, the matter is quite disturbing and calls for clear-headed assessment:
1. Impatience seldom manifests itself as a virtue. Indeed, Christopher Dawson had some interesting things to say about the connection between impatience and heresy. While no one wishes to be the proverbial boiled frog, I think it best not to rush.
2. Ignorance is not helpful. Most people in Episcopalian pews are profoundly ignorant both of Scripture and Church History. The present one can surely serve as a teaching moment. As Robert Gagnon has exhaustively demonstrated, Jennifer Priestley's claims about the New Testament's witness are manifestly incorrect. But making the argument is far more than a "the bible says..." one liner. Likewise, much of the argument against the Church's authority and witness is based on a lack of understanding about her relationship, inter alia, to slavery, women, homosexuality, warfare, and the like. Those who know are being given a marvelous opportunity to instruct those who don't.
3. Never leave, enter. No one has any business leaving even so rattletrap an ecclesiastical ediface as TEC. Entering another fellowship, preferably with some sense of being called there, however, is fine. Some willl be so called and others will just need to be somewhere else.
4. Count the cost of staying. TEC's Brave New World is most certain to fail Gamaliel's test and it may well be that a faithful remnant wil be able to pick up the pieces - someday. Remember that there were Marcionite churches into the fourth century. Be prepared to answer the heaps of nonsense, romanticism, wishful thinking and bad theology with something better. No doubt it is tedious by now to be talking something so obvious as homosexual imitations of marriage. I'd certainly prefer to talk about something else. But I suspect that Ignatius would have preferred to talk about something other than Gnosticism.
All in all, I anticipate staying in TEC and fighting the long fight as long as conscience allows. Most probably shouldn't. And of course, there may possibly be some provision for parishes like mine to opt out of the Brave New TEC World. But I don't count on it. In the meantime. we can always pray.
I can't decide if the inevitable destruction of the Episcopal group is a good thing or a bad thing. What is sure is that it's going the way of the trilobite.
The media LOVES groups like this. We'll get all kinds of stories about how great they are. Bill Moyers will spend our taxpayers money preaching the dissenting gospel on PBS. But very, very few people will get their bottoms out of bed on a Sunday morning to attend a place like this. It's a theology that secular people will cling to who are not ready for full fledged atheism.
Or...perhaps not. I was away from the Church for thirty years while I was caught up in homosexuality. My first steps at reconciliation with the the Church came by going to some grand Episcopal services. The odd thing is that while their theology is whacky, their rituals are more orthodox than many Catholic parishes. But, after a few months I got tired of beautiful ceremonies but no sacraments. That lead me back to the Catholic Church.
Anyways, don't be so concerned about these splinter groups. A few months ago I accidentally walked into a Protestant house of worship in Brookyn and found a group being lead by one of those "womyn priests." There were only EIGHT people there for one priest. These dissenters make a lot of noise and get a lot of media attention, but at some point, at least with the womyn priest thing, the priests will outnumber the parishioners.
Where the Spirit is strong and where the Gospel is preached, the people will show up. We need to focus on ridding the Church of dissenters and not be so concerned with what they think or do.
So, the Episcopal Church is not catholic, in the sense that it could not be what it now is and ever experience even minimal ecclesial union with Rome or the Eastern Orthodox;
Nor is it "Mere Christianity" in the sense of holding what most of the serious Christians have held in all places and times;
What, then, is it? A slippery thing, that looks one way, feels another, and talks in two directions at once....
Is it fairest, perhaps, to say that the Episcopal Church is something more like a work of performance art featuring the historical rites of Christian churches, as depicted by serious thespians who warm to their roles with profound and focused artistic vision, despite their personal dissociation from Christian moral teachings in everyday affairs?
"And in far, far too many places, especially the seminaries, theological depth and immersion in the Scriptures and the catholic tradition is a thing of the past."
Pardon my defensiveness, but the description does not apply in the least to my institution, Nashotah House nor to Trinity School for Ministry. Indeed, later you describe various signs of hope, and I don't think I am mistaken to regard these institutions as just that. We are grateful for the fine education Episcopalians and Anglicans are getting at places like Duke and other alternatives to the Episcopal seminaries, but it is important for the readership of First Things to know the whole truth about the seminaries of the Episcopal Church.
Garwood Anderson
Assoc Prof of New Testament and Academic Dean, Nashotah House
Ann: Yes, about ACNA-- I take that as a good and fair criticism. I actually attended the installation of Abp Duncan here in Plano, TX, with the intent of working it into a future article. And I have several close friends in ACNA. You're right that FT readers deserve commentary on it. I'd hoped to work in into "Brave New Church," but by the time I dealt with General Convention and other Communion matters, the article was already too long as it was. So, my apologies for that. Be assured that I'm following ACNA closely, and that I fully intend to write about it in the future.
Prof. Anderson: I welcome that criticism as well. A good friend of mine, Phil Anderas, just spent a year at Nashotah and had very high praise for the place. So, to be clear, my criticisms aren't meant to apply across the board. But I think you'd agree with me that Nashotah and Trinity are the exception to the rule. Far, far too many places are like EDS. And there are many bishops who won't send their postulants to either Nashotah or Trinity (or at least are very, very reluctant to do so). There is also the further point that many students at Nashotah and Trinity are not Episcopalian, and that (for instance) Trinity no longer refers to itself as an "Episcopal" school for ministry, and etc. I don't mean that in any way (at all!!) as a criticism of those schools, just as a statement of fact-- that these seminaries, although great places, aren't representative of seminary education in the Episcopal Church at large.
I think that's a fair point, isn't it? I was trying to make a point about seminary education in the church as a whole, and I think you'd almost certainly agree with me that seminary education in ECUSA is in bad straits.
Woody
P.S. Any friend of Phil Anderas is a friend of mine!
