A guest editorial from Father Dan Martins of the Diocese of San Joaquin
Update: bls at Topmost Apple chimes in.
Editor's note: Last week I invited Father Dan Martins of the Diocese of San Joaquin to write an article for Daily Episcopalian. I am delighted that he has accepted. The piece below grows out of an email conversation that Dan and I had, and, as he explains the details well, I won't get into that here. I am hoping that the article will inspire conversation that might move liberals and conservatives closer to a mutual understanding of what each side needs from the other if we are to remain together as a Church. From a little bit of previous experience, I anticipate two problems that can occur in these types of exchanges.
One is that the "ideological visitor," Dan in this case, gets swamped with questions from a dozen well-meaning interlocutors and can't respond to them all. We are going to deal with that by making two forums open for this discussion. Dan will post the piece on this blog: Confessions of a Carioca. If you want to ask him questions or interact directly with him, head over there to post your comments and questions. He will publish and respond to them in his own time. If you prefer to critique the piece, offer a proposal of your own, or interact with people other than Dan (who may drop in from time to time if he's got the time) then Daily Episcopalian is the place for your response.
The other issue that arises in these sorts of conversations is--quite simply--civility. I am going to moderate all comments to the blog today and tomorrow. That may mean it will be hours before your post appears, but I think in the long run it will make for a more fruitful exchange. If I can make one recommendation that may help keep the conversation lively, but civil, it is the advice that Ernest Hemingway gave young writers about the editing process: "Kill all your darlings." If you think you've gotten off a particularly witty retort; said something in a marvelously sharp-edged sort of way; absolutely decimated your debating partner, etc., take that language out. That kind of writing tends to appeal to the hometown fans on any blog, but playing to the crowd, rallying the faithful, firing back at the commenters on another blog (while necessary at times) isn't what this exchange is for. So let's embrace a certain rhetorical circumspection before responding to the thoughtful words that follow.
A Motion to Reconsider
By the Rev. Dan Martins
I am grateful to Jim Naughton for his kind invitation to offer a “guest editorial” on his fine blog. In the wake of the mind-of-the-house resolutions passed of late by the House of Bishops, I participated in a comment thread in which I suggested that they had just kissed off the only live option for maintaining some semblance of institutional unity among those who have—until recently, at least—identified themselves as Episcopalians. Jim wrote me off-line, saying in effect, “So we’re at an impasse. What do you think will work?”
My initial response was along the lines of “Define ‘work.’” That’s an important question because it’s a step toward articulating a goal, and one element in the current unpleasantness is certainly a disparity of goals. As I organize my own thinking, I have found a particular analytical map to be helpful (not infallible, just helpful). It is predicated on the assumption of an omnipresent tension, a polarity, between the values of truth and unity. It presumes that we all value both truth and unity, but we do so in different ways and to different degrees.
On both ends of the ideological-theological-ethical spectrum are those who tend to let truth trump unity. For Liberals (progressives, re-appraisers), the operative truth is the gospel mandate for full inclusion, radical hospitality, toward “all sorts and conditions” of human beings in the life and ministry of the church. For Conservatives (orthodox, re-asserters), the operative truth is the gospel mandate for personal holiness and righteousness, taking God on God’s terms, and not trying to remake him according to our own specifications. For both groups, the goal is to have their operative truth triumph and become the ruling institutional norm.
In the middle, then, are those whose default mode is to hold their perception of truth with such a degree of humility as allows the equally important gospel value of unity to live and move and have some being. This group straddles the center line, and includes people who are on both sides of the divisive issues. For this group, the goal is to find a way to remain visibly and organically connected with one another, even in the face of radical disagreement about some pretty basic questions. (Full disclosure: I number myself in this category—to the right of center, of course. I do, however, sometimes make common cause with conservatives of the “truth before unity” variety, and hold many of them in high esteem.)
Of course, these categories are not absolute or rigid. They are porous at the borders. Even “Truth Liberals” and “Truth Conservatives” can seriously care about unity. But it’s unity on their terms; they’re not willing to surrender a vigorous prosecution of what they believe to be the demands of truth in order to maintain unity. They want to control the institutional apparatus of the church. They don’t necessarily want to unchurch those who disagree with them, but the losers must be willing to play by the rules of the winners. By the same token, both “Unity Liberals” and “Unity Conservatives” can have a profound respect for truth, and none them would embrace unity at any cost. Everyone has a “line in the sand” somewhere. (For what it may be worth, I believe many Unity Conservatives feel as though the House of Bishops crossed that line with their resolutions.)
So, as Jim has invited me to write about what I think might “work,” the way I’m going to interpret “work” is through the lens of the goal of the “unity” party—that is, What might enable those with disparate points of view to remain under the institutional umbrella of the Episcopal Church in some way? The “Truth Liberal” take-it-or-leave-it offer is, “We don’t bend our polity one millimeter, and we don’t flinch for a nanosecond in the ‘full inclusion’ of our LGBT members, even at the cost of cashing in our membership in the Anglican Communion.” The corresponding “Truth Conservative” position is, “We don’t back off one whit from traditional Christian sexual ethics, and we remain in communion with Canterbury, even if that means creating a ‘replacement’ Anglican province in the territories now covered by the Episcopal Church.” I respect and honor those who hold both points of view. Many of them are my friends. But trying to bridge that gap is a task for someone with more intellectual horsepower and political moxie than is available to me. I must address my appeal to the “unity party” (not having any idea if there is anyone left out there who so self-identifies, and how many there might be), speaking as a member of that party who holds conservative (orthodox, traditional, re-asserter) views on the questions about which we contend with one another.
Many are no doubt asking, “Why is unity that important, anyway? This marriage is over. You’re kicking a dead horse. Why not just go our separate ways, pursue mission as we believe God has shown it to us, and leave one another alone?” I have three responses—one spiritual, one emotional, and one practical:
Unity is itself a “gospel truth.” The epistle for Lent III—with its emphasis the ministry of reconciliation that the Church has received from her Lord—was particularly compelling for me this year, coupled, as it was, with the deep reconciliation signified in the parable of the Prodigal Son. God clearly wants all those who call themselves disciples of his Son to be visibly one. Any divisions, any “brand names” (denominations), among Christians, break the heart of God.
And the corollary is this: Any schism is incalculably more difficult to mend than it is to create in the first place. Just as with marriages, trial separations between Christian bodies more often turn into divorce than into reconciliation.
It’s my church too! This is an anguished, feeling-laden cry. As we look schism in the eye, there is not one set of lips—Liberal or Conservative, Truth or Unity—on which it could not plausibly be heard. Let me speak very personally, in the hope that, with some appropriate translation, my experience might be emblematic of others’. I’m clearly on record that I am an Episcopalian, not for its own sake, but as an instrumental means of being an Anglican. At the end of the day, I will choose to remain Anglican even at the cost of remaining Episcopalian. Yet, I love the Episcopal Church with every fiber of my being. The effective moment of my “conversion” was when I sat down in a college music department practice room in 1971 with a piano and a copy of the Hymnal 1940. I thought to myself, “Where have these hymns been all my life? If there’s a church that actually sings them, I need to be in it.” I have lived and served in five different dioceses, in both lay and ordained states. I’m the graduate of an accredited seminary of the Episcopal Church. All three of my now-grown children attended an Episcopal school in Baton Rouge, LA and all three are graduates of Sewanee—The University of the South, very much an Episcopal institution. The 1979 Prayer Book has formed me spiritually for three decades now (and I think it’s the finest of the genre within Anglicanism). I have enthusiastically displayed the Episcopal shield logo on a long succession of Chrysler minivans. I’ve been a deputy to two General Conventions, and read General Ordination exams four times. This is as much my church as it is anyone else’s. I have no desire to leave it. It is my home. Yet, even as a “Unity Conservative,” I have my limits. They are now uncomfortably in plain sight.
Let’s not give God’s money to lawyers. I know some good people who are lawyers, and I realize they do necessary work, but wherever trial lawyers gather, tragedy has already struck. This is not the venue to debate the substance of the “justice issue” of church property. The only point I want to make is that, if there is not an institutional solution to our disputes, there will be endless rounds of court battles lasting decades and costing tens of millions of dollars. That’s not a “should”; it’s just an “is.” It does no good to point fingers or assign blame. It will be a tragedy for which we will have to answer on the Day of the Lord. However one conceives of the Church’s mission—whether it’s the MDGs or open-air evangelistic crusades—it’s mission that will suffer for the sake of billable hours. Everyone, on all sides, will lose the credibility of their Christian witness.
So now what do we do? If you’ve read this far, I’m sorry to have to tell you: I don’t know! I and many others are feeling devastated after the HOB meeting because the Pastoral Council/Primatial Vicar plan was the last best hope. It has the potential to keep even some “Truth Conservatives” on board because it provides a much needed layer of insulation between them and the behavior of official church leaders, all the while maintaining some degree of formal ties (the name “Episcopal,” the Pension Fund, informal relationships, history and heritage, even participation in General Convention and service on CCABs).
All I can think of to do is implore my co-partisans in the “Unity Party”—those on both sides of the divide—to “seriously lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions” (BCP, p. 818). We need to bend. All of us. Beginning with the knee joint. For the sake of unity, we need to be willing to live in a church that irritates us. We’ve got to be willing to swallow some horse pills. My sense is that many “Unity Conservatives” would be willing to say to our LGBT members: “While we cannot condone the blessing of committed relationships other than heterosexual marriage, because anything else falls short of God’s design, neither will we harass, condemn, or judge you. We will let you live in peace, and be available to you with informal pastoral support. And we will remain in an Episcopal Church in which many (most?) believe that God is calling us to something more overt, as a faithful minority, even as we disagree about God’s call.” I, at least, could say that—but no more. Trust me, that much is a horse pill! But unity is important enough for me to swallow it.
What horse pill are “Unity Liberals” willing to swallow? Not being one, I can’t answer that question. But I can suggest that “Unity Conservatives” might welcome something like this: “Just because you don’t support the goal of ‘full inclusion’ doesn’t mean you’re homophobic, and those of you who can’t accept women as priests and bishops are not misogynists. We understand the need for some degree of ‘insulation’ from what church leaders are saying and doing, even while we don’t agree with your perception. We believe conservative dioceses should be able to elect bishops that reflect their values, and have those elections consented to. And while we don’t share many of the views of our Anglican brothers and sisters in the developing world, our unity with them is so precious to us that we are willing to lay aside some of what we consider to be true.”
This would not be an ideal church for either Liberals or Conservatives. It would be annoying. It would be messy. It would be profoundly costly—in a spiritual, not in a financial sense. It would therefore be real. It would mean letting go of our American idolization of democratic and parliamentary processes. The “majority” would need to learn to serve, rather than to rule, and the “minority” would need to be humble enough not to exploit the graciousness of the majority, but to replace mere obduracy with self-differentiated openness. Such a church would have a chance, at least, of making the sort of witness in the world that God expects of us. It might just work.
I'm going to post this at Dan's place too. First, just a thank you. I think is a good piece that advances the conversation, as well as the cause of Christ. I still find myself disagreeing with what Dan has said, often passionately, but I recognize a brother here, as well as many parishioners and brother and sister clergy that I respect.
I think I fall somewhere in the truth liberal range of Dan's typology, though with a concern for unity (John 17!). I am also concerned that wherever this conversation (and argument) leads us, we are able to maintain charity and "the highest degree of communion possible."
I agree with Dan about some of the costs of schism, especially about staying out of court whenever possible. I also agree that the witness of the Church would be impoverished if some of those across the divide were to leave us. I don't sit well with Spongian theology (though I think it is less common than some conservatives let on). An evangelical and Anglo-Catholic witness, at its best, helps keep us true to the creeds, to the integrity of our sacraments, and to our witness to the Gospel and the need for both personal and social conversion. I see myself as a radical Catholic in the tradition of Dorothy Day and Conrad Noel. I have no interest in the fashionable and facile liberalism of the true revisionist. Most conservatives who know me find it hard to question my orthodoxy on any point of the Creed. People in the conservative camp who have heard me preach are often surprised to find out that I'm not on their side.
As a truth liberal (or truth radical Catholic) who cares about unity but not at the price of truth or integrity, I'd be willing not to impose my views on parishes and dioceses (so long as conservative dioceses make provision for dissenting parishes). What I'd not be willing to give up is a rite for same sex blessings in the BCP and the full access to all the sacraments and orders of ministry for all, regardless of who there partner is.
But I'd be more than willing to try to find ways to honor the conscience of all, so long as it was done in a way consistent with the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church, which he and I have sworn to uphold. I suppose I would need assurances, that the minority (in TEC) would not abuse conscience and would not seek to subvert our polity. But I agree with Dan that the majority (like the minority) should seek to serve rather than to rule. I would also be willing to listen to Dan and try to provide him assurances that I have not yet offered, insofar as I could do this without sacrificing my own integrity and conscience, or (what I have no right to do) sacrifice the integrity and conscience of LGBT Christians.
At the same time, I am very pessimistic that the Anglican Communion will hold together (or even that it should hold together). And this is tragic, but the breakup of the Anglican Communion may be the only way for God to do what God is going to do next. Whatever insitutional arrangements are reached, I hope that I will have fine, thoughtful priests like Dan as ecumenical partners, if not (and I hope they are) as priests of the Episcopal Church.
Posted by Bill Carroll | March 25, 2007 7:15 PM
As a possible "unity liberal," there are two parts of the proposed statement I cannot make: saying that people who are anti-Gay are not anti-Gay; and the idea that we should look the other way while their ally, the Primate of All Nigeria, persecutes LGBT Christians in a campaign of lies, intimidation and death threats.
Get him to repent, and surely I can stop using the "homophobic" label if that bothers you.
But not once have I ever heard of an Episcopalian testifying before a City Council and saying, "I don't believe in Gay marriage, but I support an anti-discrimination ordinance, anti-bullying programs in schools and equality in domestic partner benefits. I believe in separation of Church and state."
Persons who so testify can never be called homophobic. I'd call them allies and siblings in Christ.
Posted by Josh Thomas | March 25, 2007 7:15 PM
First, I would like to commend Jim Naughton for his positive comments, and for now monitoring the postings. We are all Christians here, and if we keep that first and formost in our minds this can be a positive thing and an opportunity to move forward. I sense Fr. Martin is speaking from his heart in this article, and I agree with him. I have been calling for unity in the Episcopal church for 12 consecutive diocesan conventions and I will honestly tell you it has been tough to do in the Diocese of Washington. But if we have at least determined we are not of a common mind on the issues before us, should we not now stop in our tracks, and first consider the "common good" for the church in all this rather than ourslves?
Posted by brad hutt | March 26, 2007 6:01 AM
Father Martins's thoughts are a valuable contribution to dialogue, and I am grateful both to him and, of course, to Jim for making this contribution possible.
That said, I believe Father Martins perpetuates a false dichotomy - and he is not alone in this - between "progressive" and "orthodox" Episcopalians - or rather too close a connection between "conservatives" and "orthodox" - literally: "correct believing" - Episcopalians. To be quick about this point, Jesus was hardly considered "orthodox" - a "correct believer" - by the terms of religious tradition and the religious majority during his time on earth. In all of this, what is at issue is the moral teaching of Christ's Church and following the example of Christ, not orthodox belief in Christ Jesus. I think it quite wrong to perpetuate or "give in" to the notion that the latter is somehow the case. For the most part, this is all about orthodox Anglicans disagreeing amongst themselves on issues of biblical interpretation regarding secondary issues, as the Primate of South Africa and others have pointed out.
Too, it is possible that Father Martins has, in effect, answered his own uncertainties by saying that his "limits" as a "unity conservative" are "now uncomfortably in plain sight." What exactly are those limits?
The Pastoral Council/PV scheme was, he says, "the last best hope," at least for unity with "truth conservatives." Ceding some of the authority of TEC to foreign bishops is thus apparently necessary for unity. The issue, it seems, is creating "a much needed layer of insulation" for "truth conservatives."
I want to understand the conservative "need" for insulation, but I am afraid I still do not. How much insulation does it take to be nonetheles in formal relationship with those with whom one disagrees? If this insulation requires ceding authority to foreign bishops, we have a serious problem. If it can be accomplished within our own household in TEC, then perhaps we can yet accomplish this. But truth be told, we are either fully part of the same Episcopal Church, or we are not, layers and layers of supposed insulation notwithstanding.
Can "unity conservatives" - let alone "truth conservatives" - be part of a church that fully welcomes GLBT people into all orders of ministry and, at the very least, allows a local option for blessing same-sex unions? Father Martins seems to leave this question open, which makes unclear whether the ultimatum of the Primates also reflects his own "limits" as a "unity conservative." Then again, perhaps this is the very reason the piece is called "A Motion to Reconsider." Perhaps Father Martins believes acceptance of the Primates' ultimatum to be the only hope for unity, even with "unity conservatives." If that were the case, then it would seem even "unity conservatives" believe the intervention of foreign bishops is a must - and that is a problem.
Posted by christopherDC | March 26, 2007 10:13 AM
I have read Father Martins thorough and well-written editorial. There is one point about the HOB resolution that is the key to the whole problem: the comment that in Western Society, we are all to ready to cut off a relationship rather than work things out to resolve issues, or if resolution is not in sight, to continue the conversation. It is the conservatives, not the inclusionists, who are actually leaving. Nearly all of them are outside the Diocese of New Hampshire. No oen forces anyone to live in New Hampshire. All Episcopalians there who cannot accept Bp. Robinsons' ministry are free to move. (But I do understand Bp. Robinson will approve alterative episcopal oversight) And those outside New Hampshire--it's simply not their problem. I fail to see how what happens in New Hampshire prevents the Diocese of San Joaquin, or Pittsburgh, or South Carolina, or any other "conservative" diocese from carrying out its mission. My advice to the conservative Dioceses is to just go about your business and ignore what's happpening in New Hampshire. I am sure the people there will return the favor.
Posted by AltoEsquire | March 26, 2007 10:52 AM
“I suggested that they had just kissed off the only live option for maintaining some semblance of institutional...”
The Primates PV Scheme was not an option at all. It never was. It was posited to the Primates as an “interim” step towards reconciliation, but to the majority of Bishops it was merely a half-step towards setting up a “replacement” province for TEC advanced by Truth Conservatives. It did not just “bend” TEC polity, but would be used to “break” TEC. This needed to be dealt with quickly and cleaning so that the “unity” liberals, conservative and moderates could go about finding what would work.
Likewise, while it might have felt like an affront, the HB statement, by clearly indicating to others, including the AC that there is no road to repentance of inclusivity, established much needed parameters within in which TEC’s Truth liberal could better be brought to the table and included in the discussion.
So I believe that rather than foreclosing any resolution, the actions and statements of the HB have created a space in which honest and productive dialogue can happen. It saved an enormous amount of time and energy that now can be spent on the real task at hand.
There may not be an institutional solution for the Truth Conservatives who want TEC either to repent of inclusivity or be replaced. (This is also true of some Truth liberals who want no allowances for any other position). However, there is much room for unity within those choices, if people of good will seek it, bending one to another.
I think some degree on insulation can and will be offered to Unity conservatives, what cannot be transferred under our current cannons is discipline. I think they can elect their bishops. Mark Lawrence is not a case in point (yet) but will be once the “replacement” scheme is finally and truly off the table. Far from having to let go of our American idolization of democratic processes, perhaps what is needed is a reexamination and investment in them so that they have the more checks and balances, more protections for minority voices, not more power invested in fewer hands.
Posted by C.B. | March 26, 2007 10:59 AM
It is good to see a civil discussion on these issues and I hope I live up to that ideal. It is also good to see someone willingly admit that they don't know what to do next. We've become so entranced by the notion that this conflict is a zero-sum game and that any display of ignorance will be considered a sign of weakness by the other side, that I am glad that some of us can still be honest with ourselves.
Count me as one of the "truth liberals" who still values unity. I think it would be disastrous for Anglicanism to become monolithic in its theology. I'm happy to share a church with those who disagree with me. A dialogue (such as what we're having now) is a great way to learn and appreciate each other's perspectives.
But the problem is that both sides consider themselves the persecuted with the other side as the oppressor. The conservatives believe the liberals are forcing theology on them, and the liberals think the conservatives are ostracizing a significant segment of our community. Can we both be right? Is there any way to reconcile these radically different viewpoints?
Well, I don't know either, but I can share a story of a similar schism. In college, I joined to a Greek organization called Alpha Delta Phi. Alpha Delt is a very old fraternity dating back to 1832 and, like most fraternities, was all-male...until 1968. The Berkeley Chapter started initiating women and this practice started to spread to other chapters including my own. The all-male chapters insisted that we were forcing women upon them, but in reality, they could initiate any one they chose. Nevertheless, in 1992, Alpha Delta Phi formally split in the Alpha Delta Phi Fraternity and the Alpha Delta Phi Society. As it happens, all the chapters belonging to the society are co-ed, however this is not required: only that society chapters get the right to choose whether they want to be all male, all female, or co-ed. To this day, I'd be happy to re-unite with the fraternity half as long as they establish the "home-rule" policy, but they are insistent that the organization not be tainted.
I think the parallels to the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion are obvious. I would love to remain part of the Anglican Communion, but if the other side insists that half the community can't be apart of it too, then I will be content to live apart.
Posted by dolsen | March 26, 2007 12:33 PM
Alto: "I fail to see how what happens in New Hampshire prevents the Diocese of San Joaquin, or Pittsburgh, or South Carolina, or any other "conservative" diocese from carrying out its mission."
The real, underlying source of the difficulty is not the Bishop of New Hampshire, although this is obviously the presenting issue. The basic problem is that ECUSA seems comfortable, from the 815 leadership down to most diocesan Standing Committees, with the idea that the General Convention of the Domestic & Foreign Missions Society can by majority vote redefine Christianity every three years and anyone who doesn't play ball is violating his ordination vows.
This has been going on for some time, of course, but the situation has finally reached a point where a number of parishes have left ECUSA not over any dispute with their diocesan leadership, but because ECUSA has become so firmly associated in much of the public mind with wildly improbable theology and highly questionable moral teaching that they are ashamed to even have the name "Episcopal" on the sign out front.
In any compromise, the revisionists have a great advantage: they know exactly what the theological position of the orthodox faction will be in a dozen years: precisely the same as it is now. The orthodox, on the other hand, can have no confidence at all that any fundamental Christian teaching is safe whenever GC meets.
The split is absolutely inevitable, I'm afraid. The Communique was the last, best hope of having it occur with any degree of grace and charity. With the greatest respect for Dan+'s goodwill, GC06 and the HoB's latest meeting clearly demonstrated that an extremely messy fight is ahead. Let us all pray for minimal casualties.
Posted by Craig G | March 26, 2007 12:47 PM
I wonder if anyone has any ideas for what a vicar scheme, other than the one proposed by the Primates, would look like?
My sense is that these things are hard to write into law, so to speak, because they depend primarily on a level of trust between the key players. We have an arrangement with Bishop Ed Salmon of South Carolina who provides supplemental oversight to a parish in our diocese. It works in part because Bishops Chane and Salmon trust one another. Could it be a simple as offering conservative parishes and dioceses a vicar they could trust?
Posted by Jim Naughton | March 26, 2007 1:15 PM
A couple of points. First, I think any Protestant, no matter what stripe, needs to tread with a great deal of humility when discussing schism. There are today more than twice as many Roman Catholics in the world as there are Protestants-- they belong to one denomination; we are split into some 36,000 or so denominations. If anyone can claim to be the true mother church, well, it's not any of us.
Second, any meaningful unity cannot have its basis in ecclesiology, nor in compromises over theological ideas, nor in ideas of justice, nor in ideas of orthodox belief. Meaningful unity can have only one basis, and that is unswerving loyalty to a person. And that person's name is Jesus Christ.
This source of our disunity is the fallen nature shared by both sides to this argument, which manifests itself by putting our loyalty to human ideas (justice, orthodoxy, fairness, interpretations of Scripture, or any of a variety of other things) above our loyalty to our Lord and Savior.
It seems to me that a tremendous amount of the contentious discussion going on in the Episcopal Church today could be fairly reduced to charges and counter charges of idolatry, and that both sides have a point when they say this, and that both sides are also pretty blind to the logs in their own eyes.
As fallen sinners, we all have a tendency to self-worship. That means that it is easy for me to see that my brother is worhiping a false idol, especially if that false idol is an idol that I personally disdain! But it is at the same time quite difficult for me to see that I too worship a false idol.
To change this, we must learn to come to one another from a position of humility and submission to our Lord. God's kingdom is not a democracy. It is a theocracy.
The test of any proposal for unity is not justice; it is not orthodoxy; it is whether it is grounded in mutual loyalty to our Lord.
If our goal is unity, then maybe we should try starting here:
"I pledge to try to obey my savior Jesus Christ with all my heart, all my soul, and all my mind. I renounce my claim to anything other than this rigorous calling. I don't care where it leads. I don't care if I have to forsake my most precious possessions and ideas."
I make my pledge and you make your pledge and then let's see what will happen.
Posted by Rick Harris O.P. | March 26, 2007 1:15 PM
I appreciate Fr. Dan's honesty and thoughtful attempt to move the conversation forward. I must observe that his prescriptions, i.e. the
contents of his 'pills' that differing sides may need to swallow, would, in my opinion, do more harm than good to the health of that part of the Body of Christ known as the the Episcopal Church. The best medicine for all is, I think, a good dose of reality. I believe the only truly urgent concerns we have left are those that might involve the courts, lawyers, and law-suits. And here, I think we're over-agonizing; my belief is that the actual level of legal dispute will be far, far less than our fears predict.
More theologically, though, the suggestion that God is bothered by Christianity's denominational distinctions is clearly debatable. Obviously, for one to hold to this position most truly, one would need to be a Roman Catholic. I, for one, don't think God is half as much bothered by our sorry divisions as God is bothered by our sorry obsessions with them. Division is always a bad thing when one loses both some sense of one's identity and also tangible property. It's usually the combination of the two that makes division somehow lamentable. But when one gains, e.g. autonomy, freedom from oppression, etc. then division is viewed as a good thing, even holy, and rightly so. Before lamenting division per se, one needs to recall that the Church of England was itself born of precisely such division. The Episcopal Church was itself born of such division.
The plain reality that some are struggling to deny is that there lies before each of us a choice whether or not to remain a member of the Episcopal Church. People have learned, to the chagrin of some, that this Church is a very human organization, and that the virtues of its self-governance are the very things that have prevented its stagnation and allowed it to grow beyond boundaries that some would have chosen to keep. That it has not remained what it once might have been in the recent or more distant past is, for some, a source of regret; for some it is a great and growing joy.
Progress is costly, but no, not spiritually so. Its cost is in the death of the old assumptions, of the former relationships, and of the dynamics that exercised formative influence over them. Some of us can take heart, though, for behold, all things are being made new. Those who simply find it untenable to remain in the Episcopal Church can give thanks to God, as well. For our denominational divisions have made possible the existence of a diversity of spiritual homes for a diversity of spiritual tastes. We in the Episcopal Church, and perhaps in the Communion as well, are learning that unity is not defined by our ability to worship at the same street address or under the same denominational brand; but by serving others and loving God, and letting these priorities determine naturally the communal environments in which we will regularly pray. Many good branches grow from one good tree. The Episcopal Church is a stronger branch of Christianity for refusing to "lay aside some of what we consider to be true" and thus refusing to allow itself to rot from the inside out.
Posted by Jim Stockton | March 26, 2007 1:22 PM
I would like to add to Jim's statement that while court suits will initially be costly, once the law is settled, and this may vary between certain states that have different laws, the parties will go into settlement/mediation mode. In other words, I don't think this is a determining factor. It will be painful and difficult, but I think the over riding concern should be for ensuring that people are not split off from TEC when accommodation can be made provided trust can be re-established.
For those who do not trust TEC's process, I don't think TEC can offer them a fix.
Posted by C.B. | March 26, 2007 2:26 PM
Trust will never be established by going to Civil Courts. The first step as I see it would be to withdraw the Lawsuits and build from there.
Posted by brad hutt | March 26, 2007 3:23 PM
Dan Martin+ offers a very thoughtful and moving personal statement that cannot be answered in a short reply. One problem with it at the outset is the notion that a primary goal is to arrive at "truth" about what God wants from mankind. When Jesus was asked about the greatest law, he paraphrased the Schema: love God with all your heart and soul and mind; and love your neighbor as youself.
The problem is twofold: How do we love God when we can only see him through a glass darkly (often very darkly); and in order to fulfill the second part of that law we need institutions -- social and political and, yes, ecclesiastical institutions -- in order to function in this fallen world.
Jesus provides a model first of personal humility before God recognizing that our "truths" are always reflections of our own wills, and a charge to seek first justice for the oppressed and freedom for those in bondage. Holiness codes cannot justify oppression or exclusion.
We need to work out the details of our own church life in a way that permits the conversations about how to live together and how to express our gratitude for God's gifts to continue despite the existence of many different cultures, ideas of right and wrong and in the presence of a lot of strong personalities who find humility a very hard concept to grasp.
I find it hard to understand what the demand for "alternative primatial oversight" means in practice to the dissenters and why they think that a foreign churchman can understand their situation better than someone within the society of which they are a part. The rules that govern "unity" within TEC are quite basic and seem to leave bishops and parishes great discretion in how they order their daily lives -- the baptismal covenant sets the standards and the open, representative structure of our polity ensures decent respect for the ideas of all. Why is it so hard for the dissenters of today to live with them?
Posted by BruceM | March 26, 2007 7:35 PM
TEC operates under a constitutional structure that was developed by many of the same people who wrote the US constitution. It is a structure in which decisions and directions are controlled by a majority of voting representatives.
Ultimately there is nothing about the organization that cannot be changed by majority decision.
Other organizational structures are certainly possible. The RCC for example takes a very different approach.Were the membership of TEC desirous of changing it's basic structure it could do so. However, the only legal means of doing this would be through the present constitutional process.
People who are attempting to modify this process by seeking to impose the will of outside agents such as the primates of the AC who have no constitutional authority in TEC are resorting to extra legal means to get their way.The action of the HoB in recommending that these extra legal means be firmly rejected seems to me to be soundly responsible.
Dan Martins seems to be of the opinion that the sensibilities of the conservative minority require structural protections and guarantees. I would submit that the only legitimate way to acquire those is through the existing constitutional process.
Posted by Richard Lyon | March 26, 2007 7:45 PM
A Consolidated Response
(to those who have commented here--a response to those who have commented on my own blog will appear as a new post there)
To Bill Carroll:
I agree, Bill, that you are a veritable exemplar of what I meant by Truth Liberal. In your goal of enshrining same-sex blessings in the BCP, you seem to commit yourself to taking TEC even further down the road of alienating not only Episcopalian conservatives, but most of the rest of the Anglican Communion. I respect the integrity of your position, but it saddens me.
Interestingly, in your words about the sort of relationship you would like people who believe as I do to have with TEC—if I may paraphrase: a well-behaved minority with no actual power—one could virtually reverse the terms and it would, I believe, speak for most Truth Conservatives. At this eleventh hour, I’m going to be bold enough to suggest that, in either scenario, one side gets to have a church that suits them comfortably and the other side gets to be a kept pet. If we are going to be “repairers of the breach” (Is. 58:12), we need to be mutually willing to be uncomfortable, to be part of an ecclesial community that makes us wince, that we often find embarrassing, that contains elements—beliefs and practices—that we believe are simply wrong, but which we accept for the sake of unity.
Bill, how uncomfortable are you willing to be?
To Brad Hutt:
You raise some important questions on which I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify my position.
First, I completely take your point about “orthodoxy.” I was simply acknowledging that it is a frequent descriptor that conservatives use of themselves, particularly when talking among themselves. However, I recognize that many whose positions on presently controverted issues would place them in the “liberal” category don’t even think of crossing their fingers when they say the creeds, and believe themselves to be—and indeed are—orthodox in the pure and narrow sense of that term.
Now, with respect to “insulation” and “ceding authority to foreign bishops,” you have indeed flushed out what is apparently the poison pill—for most of the leadership of the Episcopal Church, that is—in the Primates’ scheme. I understand the principle that is at stake. Under circumstances that one could remotely describe as normal, I would share a commitment to that principle. What I would invite “the Episcopal majority” (speaking generically, that is, not of the organization that goes by that name!) to consider is whether there may be a hierarchy of principles such that the preservation of organic unity supersedes the right of TEC to govern itself without foreign assistance. Might that completely appropriate and just principle be something that can be set aside for a greater good? I guess the question then arises whether it is indeed a greater good. My own opinion is that it very much is.
But why is it even necessary? This is a complex question, and there are probably as many answers as there are those who would attempt to answer it. But I suspect that the primary issue is one of trust. [Craig G, thank-you for pointing this out.] Conservative Episcopalians simply do not trust the power structures of TEC and the individuals who inhabit those structures. There’s no point arguing whether the perception is correct or not; it’s the perception. And as we all know (those in parish ministry more than any, I think), perception is reality.
So the only sort of Primatial Vicar arrangement that can address the trust issue quickly and effectively is that the individual is neither appointed by the Presiding Bishop nor accountable to the Presiding Bishop. Yes, that’s a horse pill, to use the metaphor of my original post, for liberals. But is it really one that cannot be swallowed? I can understand a Truth Liberal choosing to die in this ditch. My hope (fantasy?) is that there are enough Unity Liberals out there who would be willing to suck it up and endure a political anomaly for the sake of institutional unity, and avoid the expenditure of many tens of millions of dollars in legal fees generated by property disputes.
To Alto Esquire:
Your comments point in a helpful direction. A reformation of our deliberative processes so as to insert more checks and balances is a fruitful suggestion. However, the situation we face is truly emergent. Irreparable damage is about to be done. We need fast-acting symptomatic relief while the underlying issues are addressed more slowly. The Primates’ PV scheme would provide that relief.
To dolsen:
You have succinctly articulated what I believe is problematic about the “polity” argument that we are hearing so much of these days. It leads inevitably to a sort of General Convention supremacism that rivals any claim ever made by any of the Bishops of Rome! The notion that GC is plenipotentiary and self-referential—with no accountability to anything beside or beyond itself—should strike abject fear into the heart of anyone who believes in the “one holy catholic and apostolic church” of the Nicene Creed.
You may indeed turn out to be correct about the inevitability of a split. Talk to me in about eight months!
To Jim Naughton:
You are quite right about the centrality of loyalty to our Lord Jesus. That doesn’t get us all the way to home plate, but it gets us into scoring position! We still have to drive in the run, and the Evil One on the mound has some literally wicked breaking stuff he’s throwing at us. The hardest thing for all of us, I think, is to acknowledge that our opponents come by their positions honestly, and out of a deep personal faith in the risen and redeeming Christ. It’s tempting for conservatives to tar anyone who disagrees with them (I should say “us”) with the brush of Pike, Spong, and Borg. I remind myself daily that it is wrong to do so. And I imagine it’s tempting for liberals to tar all conservatives with the brush of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jonathan Edwards, Torquemada, and even Fred Phelps. I invite you to remind yourselves daily that it is wrong to do so.
To Jim Stockton:
I can only observe that you and I have radically different ecclesiologies. As I read your remarks, I discern a classic low-church/evangelical ecclesiology, wherein the “true church” is spiritual and invisible, and the institutional church a matter of convenience and expediency, and hence not overly important to God. I come at the matter from an unabashedly Catholic perspective, wherein the “corpus mysticum” and its institutional incarnation cannot be definitively separated, and, hence, visible division (“denominations”) breaks God’s heart.
To Richard Lyons:
You write, “Dan Martins seems to be of the opinion that the sensibilities of the conservative minority require structural protections and guarantees. I would submit that the only legitimate way to acquire those is through the existing constitutional process.” A question I raised above merits repetition in this context: Is the integrity of TEC’s polity a sufficiently important principle as to make it worth enduring another major schism in the Christian world, and the resulting legal battles and damage to the credibility of the gospel’s witness in the world? Is that really a hill worth dying on?
Posted by Dan Martins | March 26, 2007 9:53 PM
"Is the integrity of TEC’s polity a sufficiently important principle as to make it worth enduring another major schism in the Christian world, and the resulting legal battles and damage to the credibility of the gospel’s witness in the world? Is that really a hill worth dying on?"
I think you missed my point. The polity is as it presently exist. If you want to change it to something more compatible with your taste it requires a majority vote. The present majority seems to think that the polity of TEC is of great value. That would appear to be another issue in which you are in the minority.
There are just a whole lot of people who don't agree with you on numerous matters. I think that a democratic polity is as fundamentally valuable as anything else. As far as the gospel's witness goes, there a great many people outside the church who will be impressed by an organization willing to take a strong stand for human rights.
Posted by Richard Lyon | March 26, 2007 11:59 PM
Dan,
Corpus permixtum!
I'm uncomfortable with the Episcopal Church now, and will continue to be, even if "my side" gets our way on a rite for blessings/a unified marriage rite for same sex and opposite sex couples in the BCP. As a radical Catholic (is there any other kind?), I am more than just uncomfortable with flags in Church, with national songs in the hymnal, with depending on usury (endowments--our parish has one, our diocese has even more), with people involved with the military and holding office in the government, etc. etc. In many, many ways I am in a minority and the more openly I show my true colors the more marginal I become to many conversations and Church power structures. And yet I love the institution, as painfully compromised as I think it is, and try to be faithful to my baptismal and ordination vows. One of the things I admire about your piece is that I think you are the type of "conservative" priest who is honestly trying to do the same thing.
We've lost votes before. C051 was far less than we wanted at GC2003. We barely acknowledged the status quo, and that was controversial.
It shouldn't be surprising that the future we envision would not be pleasant to you. The future that you envision, which in my view amounts to stalling the inevitable is equally unpalatable to us.
I don't see why your discomfort with a rite for same sex blessings in the prayer book, if that's what General Convention authorizes, provides any more reason to leave than my own discomfort with the Church's collusion with usury, patriotism, militarism, etc. To say nothing of the classism, racism, sexism, and heterosexism that still run rampant even in the "liberal" parishes and dioceses.
The Episcopal Church is imperfect, but we meet Christ here. Isn't that enough?
I say this knowing that we may not be able to convince General Convention to go forward for a decade or more. I think that marginal existence is the fate of anyone who tries to be faithful to God. I admire the integrity of your convictions and your ability to remain charitable. I would like to find a way for all of us to be faithful to what we think God requires of us.
If we're paying attention to God, we will be scandalized by the Church.
Posted by Bill Carroll | March 27, 2007 12:11 AM
Dan, With all due respect, if you wish to be true to your convictions about the ecclesiology that you claim as your own, why then are you a Protestant? Arguments against schism that claim a rootedness in an "unabashedly Catholic perspective, wherein the 'corpus mysticum' and its institutional incarnation cannot be definitively separated" may use such rhetoric as 'God's heart breaks at our divisions' effectively. However, coming as they do from Protestants, their logic fails, and the arguments rings hollow. Protestants may speak idealistically about the ecclesiology that you describe. Yet, as long they remain Protestants, they do not genuinely embrace that which they idealize; they are to some degree deluding themselves. Yet, I suspect that for each of us, the latent possibility of walking away and the freedom inherent to Protestantism to do so are significant reasons why we are remain. Even while we say the Creeds and mean what they say, nevertheless for you and me as Protestants, whether you or I like it or not, schism is always on the table. It is the very origin of our distinct tradition.
Posted by Jim Stockton | March 27, 2007 1:25 AM
Dan - You say the only sort of Primatial Vicar arrangement that can address the trust issue must be "neither appointed by the Presiding Bishop nor accountable to the Presiding Bishop."
I may be misinterpretting what you are saying but for all intents and purposes - you are asking TEC to split itself.
Here's what I mean - The PB may appoint a council who appoints the PV, and may delegate to the council all her powers except disciplinary oversight, which under our cannons can not be delegated. If that power ever is delegated you in effect have two churches. But it seems that is precisely what Truth conservatives say they have to have in order to stay.
What you are saying is that in order to address the emergent problem, TEC must in effect suspend its polity and create a second church. But will the emergency ever be over? Probably not anytime in the foreseeable future. So, the "horse pill" that TEC must swallow is to in effect split itself to retain unity. Truth conservatives know this is not possible, that is why their strategy was to do an end run around TEC and appeal to the Primates.
If such a PV Scheme, is the only PV scheme that will "work" for the Truth conservatives then, as I have said, there is no fix, to fix it.
On the other hand, I believe that there are many Unity conservatives who do not require a "second church" to remain. And it is to them that an appeal can be made.
Posted by C.B. | March 27, 2007 9:12 AM
Father Martins said above, "So the only sort of Primatial Vicar arrangement that can address the trust issue quickly and effectively is that the individual is neither appointed by the Presiding Bishop nor accountable to the Presiding Bishop. Yes, that’s a horse pill... But is it really one that cannot be swallowed?"
Answer: Yes. If anyone can just say they don't trust the leadership of their province and thus claim the right to create a new structure to accommodate their concerns comfortably, then what we have is a perpetually self-fracturing church. Had the Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals insisted on such accommodation on the basis of their respective, well-founded views, where exactly would the church be today?
To repeat the basic point I made above, we are either part of the same Episcopal Church, or we are not.
Posted by christopherDC | March 27, 2007 9:24 AM
Rich Harris has the right idea in making our pledge to Christ our central unifier. We make our own pledge and accept with trust that our fellows are making and fulfilling their pledges as they and their local communities best discern.
This is where Martins' horse pills seem uneven. Conservatives would agree to disagree about how liberals are fulfilling their pledges, but the conservatives would not harrass or hinder the liberals. The liberals, on the other hand, would have to not only agree to disagree with how the conservatives are fulfilling their pledges to Christ, but the liberals would also have to lay aside some of their own pledge-fulfilling activities to appease our Anglican brothers and sisters in the developing world.
These horse pills are not the same size. One side is asked to simply "live and let live," while the other side is asked to "live and let live" AND stop doing some things that the other side just can't live with after all.
Posted by RebstockTSSF | March 27, 2007 2:54 PM
Fr. Dan said:
"My sense is that many “Unity Conservatives” would be willing to say to our LGBT members: “While we CANNOT CONDONE the blessing of committed relationships other than heterosexual marriage, because anything else falls short of God’s design, neither will we harass, condemn, or judge you. We will let you live in peace..." [Emph. added]
My dictionary defines "condone" as "To overlook, forgive or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure."
How can you say you "cannot condone" and AT THE SAME TIME say "neither will we harass, condemn, or judge you. We will let you live in peace"??? These seem antithetical to me.
Why could you not, Dan, just say "While we cannot bless committed relationships other than heterosexual marriage..."? That would seem to allow BOTH sides breathing room---and, surprise, it's also TEC's marital policy vis-a-vis clergy, already! No changes to polity even necessary!
****
But even before we get to that,
"For Conservatives (orthodox, re-asserters), the operative truth . . . taking God on God’s terms, and not trying to remake him according to our own specifications" "The corresponding “Truth Conservative” position is, “We don’t back off one whit from traditional Christian sexual ethics"
Both of these claims beg the question of just how much TRUTH there is among "Truth Conservatives" [i.e., naming their own subjective opinions and interpretations as "taking God on God’s terms" or "traditional Christian sexual ethics"]
Yeah, Dan, it is about TRUST: your ***framing*** of these questions, just don't give me a whole lot of grounds to trust you.
Similarly, to Craig G: "In any compromise, the revisionists have a great advantage: they know exactly what the theological position of the orthodox faction will be in a dozen years: precisely the same as it is now."
Au contraire: I have no confidence that the "orthodox" (so-called) position won't change, according to the next diktat of ++Akinola, +Duncan and ?Minns. That, after all, is what we JUST WITNESSED in Tanzania! >:-/
Lord have mercy!
Posted by tgflux | March 31, 2007 7:25 PM