Change or wither
By Nigel J. Taber-Hamilton
We Christians face an uncertain future. Not just those of us who are Episcopalian – all Christians. All Christians and especially those of us who live in the North Atlantic Community, the old First and Second Worlds.
The evidence is overwhelming – dramatic shifts in human identity and understanding have been taking place for a very long time, and the pace of change has picked up very significantly in the last fifty years. A paradigm-shift is taking place and the Church is swept up in it. No one – no faith community – is immune. The truth is that the future will be very different than the present, and will require a dramatically different way of being “church” if we are to last more than a couple of decades into the 21st Century.
Throughout our culture old patterns of relationship, old iterations of institutional identity, old ways of believing are passing away.
They are not passing away easily. Retreats into absolutism, hierarchy, and paternalism abound, especially in Mainline faith traditions.
In many ways deep denial exists in all corners of faith communities. Denial no only among those who seek to retrench, who believe it is possible to turn back the tidal wave, but also among those who have some awareness that change is inevitable, but believe that, in the interests of community and unity, the change needs to be – can be – managed.
When tidal waves arrive it does not matter what groups and individuals believe – whether they are in denial, or are being co-dependent – they are all going to be washed away.
The Episcopal Church faces just such a time.
All Mainline denominations face this dramatically different future, of course. We share the path with other Mainline denominations, such as the Presbyterians and Methodists and the ELCA Lutherans, seeking to respond to these dramatic changes.
We flatter ourselves if we think the world is watching us while we decide how to embrace the inevitable future – and make no mistake, it is inevitable. On the whole, the world outside does not really care very much – most folk are struggling with their own issues and responses.
The world outside could care, of course. It could care if it sees a faith tradition not just struggling with these issues that are metaphors for the change but responding in healthy ways.
Whether we should be concerned about the response of contemporary society is an open question, but it is also moot. The changes will happen whether we like it or not.
Now, at General Convention, we face decisions about one such metaphor for change. What will we do?
As we decide we need to remember that the blessing of same-sex unions or the consecration of those persons who are in committed same-sex relationships is not the issue in front of us but simply a presenting event of the deeper struggle over the future – just as the ordination of women to priesthood and episcopate has been.
It is time to move on.
All change results in loss, and it is, perhaps anticipatory loss that most of all drives those who resist change. While it is important – vital – for all of us to offer compassionate responses to those experiencing profound loss it is not for us to be co-dependent.
We cannot make any decision based on what others might (probably will) do.
We cannot betray good and holy Christians because of what others claim about their identities – claims we know to be – at the least – questionable.
We cannot allow those who claim the exclusive right to interpret biblical truth to control how we understand biblical truth.
And we cannot allow those who claim some authority – even as a first among equals – to influence our decision-making solely through their role.
Were we to do any of these things – were we to continue down the same, appeasing path – we betray our own faith, we betray the way we have come to be faithful Episcopal Christians, we betray Jesus.
Nigel J. Taber-Hamilton is rector of St. Augustine's-in-the-woods Episcopal Church on Whidbey Island, Washingtonand a former alternate deputy to General Convention. Contact him at rector@whidbey.com.

Nigel raises plenty of valid points here. He points to shifts in culture and the failure of the Episcopal Church to do successful mission and ministry in light of such new realities.
But, he also makes a couple of largely false claims as well, upon which the actual thrust of his piece hinges. The thrust being that we must now move forward with what we have perceived to be our faithful response to Jesus -- and that to do otherwise is a form of "appeasement" and unfaithfulness to Jesus.
He argues that we as a Church must not "make any decision based on what others might (probably will) do," or, "allow those who claim some authority – even as a first among equals – to influence our decision-making solely through their role."
The fallacies are these: 1)it is not clear even to us what a faithful moving forward means and 2) it is not possible to say that we can be faithful to Christ while acting in ways that so utterly disregard the clearly communicated concerns of our partners in faith.
Specifically, as to the first point, there remains a significantly wide range of opinions among faithful Episcopalians about what to do vis a vis the inclusion of gay persons in the full sacramental life, and ordained life, of the Church. As well, it seems to me that even if General Convention were to decide on a couple of resolutions, for example, but were to pass them by a relatively slim majority -- I am not persuaded that such a decision would constitute the agreement he argues we have. On the second point, there is a notion of catholicity which I have, which is rooted in a notion of covenant-making and partnership, that most of us have I think, that says that the right relationship between partners in life as in ministry requires faithful listening and mutual submission. Is it good in marriage, for example, when one spouse simply goes ahead with a plan of action that the other spouse has plainly objected to and has said might constitute grounds for divorce? Doesn't the 'non-appeasing' spouse really have a duty to weigh the other partner's faithfully expressed convictions? Is there not any possibility that when one has blended and bonded one's life with another that one of the values of such partnership is that one's partner very often offers a much-needed check and challenge to one's own individual desires and sense of what is 'right?'
The Episcopal Church is in full communion with a number of churches -- Anglican and Lutheran. Hopefully, we will enter into full communion with more -- such as the Moravians, and perhaps one day the Methodists. Are we to believe that we value such relationships -- which are intended to mirror also the kind of union enjoyed between Christ and the Church -- so little as to say, "We cannot make any decision based on what others might (probably will) do," or, "allow those who claim some authority – even as a first among equals – to influence our decision-making solely through their role." Might it not be perceived rightly by current and potential future communion partners that we are not really interested in full communion, but rather a much less interwoven bond that looks more like a convivial coexistence which invites no challenge to existential and essential autonomy?
If indeed we cannot allow our partners in Christ to influence, nay share in, our discernment of Christ's own mind -- then I seriously doubt whether we can be considered at all faithful in such discernment.
Posted by anglicancentrist
|
July 7, 2009 11:14 PM
There is an inherent obligation to consult with our ecumenical partners. Some (Rowan Williams, the authors of the Windsor Report, the authors of the Anglican Covenant, etc.) seem to confuse consultation with giving those others a veto. We must, in the end, be true to ourselves, our conscience, and our discernment of God's will for us. But consultation with others is part of that discernment.
Posted by Bill Carroll
|
July 8, 2009 3:07 AM