Thanks, Bishop Whalon. My eventual apprehension of the points you are making here led me to change the original headline to the current version because I didn't think you were saying we hadn't "done the theology" but that we hadn't owned what we'd done. Your response here, combined with your AO column, makes for a presentation that is careful yet challenging.

Are there any out LGBT people on this panel of the HOB? If so, then there is some credibility. If not....

Lee

Theology according to Anselm is "Faith seeking understanding."

I think that's the kind of theology we do. As soon as we vote on it or make it "official", the "seeking understanding" part is transformed into a "commanding obedience" part which soon becomes a "seeking heretics/scapegoats" part.

I very much admire Bishop Whalon, and I hold in high esteem the most thoughtful among our Anglican flock, but I also believe that great intelligence too easily tempts one to seek power over those of less intelligence. That is a dangerous thing.

As it is, we let everyone speak their piece from the greatest to the least, and then we make a decision based on what we hear. One of the great things about our polity is that it is reformable if, on further reflection, we discover that we've made a mistake.

Bunker Hill
Spearfish, SD

There are LGBT folks on the panel. Apparently the bishops will receives drafts of two papers, one by the libs and one by the conservatives at their meeting at Camp Allen next month. Even if the papers are excellent, it isn't clear to me how this exercise will lead anywhere.

I wasn't aware that the Episcopal Church had a Magisterium, aside from the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and perhaps the BCP Catechism. Where are these official statements of doctrine and teaching collected? (I'm not being facetious; I've never been aware of this, but Bishop Whalon seems to be saying there is such a thing, and if there is, I want to read it.)

Mike Lockaby

And then there's the concise theology (May I call it that?) of Bishop Barbara Harris:

"How can you initiate someone and then treat them like a half-assed baptized?"

June Butler

I've commented at some length at my place. I think what Bp W. is asking is for GC formally to accept the theological work that has been done. And yes, it is about time.

Thanks to Bishop Whalon for adding to his original article. This is helpful.

It seems to me that it also answers the question in my response to the earlier post on his article: he does indeed feel there needs to be an action of General Convention. I think that has its place. Indeed, I think that's one place we can find the theology - but not in the resolutions.

One of the most valuable events in Anaheim, I believe, was the session of the House of Deputies devoted simply to listening. People spoke to their experiences and their beliefs about where the Episcopal Church might go in the future. And if one paid attention, there were many who cited, at least in summary due to time constraints, theological positions on which they founded their decisions. Sure, much of it seemed "bumper sticker" theology: summary statements, offered in the words the speaker thought would offer the most punch. However, it would be presumptuous and dismissive to imagine that those brief statements weren't grounded in long, deep reflection. Were we to review again a transcript of that session, we would hear that a great deal of theology had not only been done, but had now been shared in General Convention.

It was argued in response to the previous post that "there is no Anglican theology." I take issue with that in two ways. First, I think there is an Anglican process of doing theology, modeled by many, that incorporates explicit reflection on Scripture, the history and tradition of the Church, and reasoned reflection on our experience before God. Second, there are certain prisms that are particularly important for Anglicans, including a focus on the Incarnation; reflection on the Church Fathers; expression in our Worship; and an understanding of Scripture that is multivalent and faithfully critical.

In that light, I think a good deal of theology was expressed in General Convention. Sure, it was expressed in argument for or against resolutions, more than in the resolutions themselves. And, sure, there was a minority, siblings who didn't find compelling the theological positions of the majority. That said, perhaps that activity in Convention should be both a resource and an expression for us as to the theology that has been done in this Church on these difficult issues - at least as much a resource and expression as a report from the HOB Theology Committee, and any resolutions that might rise from that.

Marshall Scott

Resolution C056 directed the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to "collect and develop theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships." We've begun that work, and we'll have more to report about the process after our March meeting. It is likely that our report to the 2012 General Convention will provide an opportunity for the convention to accept the theological work.
Ruth Meyers
SCLM Chair

I acknowledge that I was being provocative by saying "there is no Anglican theology." My point was that there is no _official_ position, on most theological issues, that is particularly Anglican. And further, that there is no body within the Episcopal Church (or indeed, within the Anglican Communion) charged with "doing the theology" in the way Bishop Whalon seems to want it.

Of course, within the Episcopal Church, the General Convention _could_ make it a practice of adopting theological statements to define our position on this or that issue more clearly. Historically, this has not been done (as far as I know). Rather, the process Marshall describes has taken place: individual deputies and Bishops come to General Convention and vote to adopt or change Constitution or Canons of the church based on individually held theological conclusions. As far as I know, we have never had a practice of adopting an official theological statement on an issue before changing Constitution or Canon. To change our polity now, becuase GLBT issues are "different," feels to me like changing the rules of the game because you don't like the probable (or actual) outcome of playing the way we've always done.

One interesting argument raised yesterday was that we _have_ absolutely done the theology: we did it when we adopted the Book of Common Prayer, 1979. (Prayer Books are one thing Episcopalians do take seriously; I would say that the most serious and official theology we have is expressed there. And certainly, the process for adopting a new PB requires long and thoughtful deliberation.) The Baptismal Covenant we live by charges us to respect the dignity of every human being. Case closed. As Integrity said over and over in Anaheim: all the sacraments for all the baptized. The burden should be on those who want to do otherwise.

Finally, I take issue with Bishop Whalon's dismissal of "To Set our Hope on Christ." In particular, I don't agree that it was "produced privately," as if a rogue set of theologians had attempted to thwart the effort of the Episcopal Church to define itself by answering the questions posed to the church in the Windsor Report. Rather, Presiding Bishop Griswold, inresponse to TWR, asked a group of prominent Episcopalian theologians, including Bp Roskam of New York, to write an asnwer. They did, and the answer was published by the Office of Communication of the Episcopal Church. Let's see--the Presiding Bishop of the church commissioned it; it was published by the church press. Sounds "official" to me; or at least, as official as we ever are about almost anything.

Okay, so the Bishops and the GC didn't vote on it. Maybe a resolution saying that we apopt it officially would be enough? Maybe. But still--I question this need to define ourselves so clearly now, when we have resisted doing so in that past. The Anglican mode of theology has always been reticent to say too much in the face of mystery: this is the genius of the Elizabethan Settlement. (Is it a memorial? Or the real presence? Its both!) We have our creeds. We have our prayer book. That has always been enough, up to now; and it has allowed a lot of space for Anglicanism to practice comprehensiveness, to welcome those who disagree, and still greet them with a sign of peace. Is it worth losing that to gain an "official" theological statement (and quite likely, an inquisition to enforce the official line)?

Jason Cox

You know, I am reminded that we passed last summer resolution A074, Endorse Theological Statement on Interreligious Relations. It's core is an effort at a succinct statement of the faith as this Church has received it, out of which to participate in dialog with persons of other faiths. It isn't specific enough to meet Bishop Whalon's suggestions, but it does emphasize the fundamentals of the faith from which so many of us have come to see the necessity of full participation of all God's people in all of God's church.

So, in fact we did slip in passing in General Convention a theological statement.

Marshall Scott

It seems to me that the work done in consenting to +Gene's election was very much a work of theology.

I'm surprised at the idea that doing the theology can be seen to be simply a church Convention adopting a policy. Doesn't doing the theological work of a church also include all those liturgical celebrations (including Episocopal Consecrations) and all those business meetings that we all take part in?

Would it be possible to be pointed towards the official theological teaching of the (US-based) Episcopal Church? Is there a canon of such teaching?

[Rod Gillis left this comment below at another post. Evidently it is in response to the posts on Whalon - eds.]

This section of Pierre Whalon’s initial article intrigues me:

“It seems to me that the Holy Trinity had had enough of the “don’t ask–don’t tell” policy that was de facto on the church-wide level up until 2003, and therefore the Spirit introduced us all to the new Bishop of New Hampshire. Now we had to deal with the reality of what we doing, and defend it. Not by some appeal to psychology or endocrinology or genetics, or other contested, ephemeral, and finally dehumanizing “scientific answers,” but some honest-to-God theology, a reasoned argument based firmly on Scripture and the other, lesser resources of the Tradition.”

Intentionally or not, Whalon, in this section, has put his finger on the bottleneck. As I read this, I was reminded of an old question: which comes first, theoria or praxis? The best answer is that that the two really are part of the legendary hermeneutical circle. I take Whalon’s argument to be a reminder of that.
However, I think it is also helpful to remember, as we engage the hermeneutical circle, that the issues around the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the church, is not primarily, or in the first instance, a theological problem. The issue of human and civil rights, and contemporary insight into sexual orientation, are not really found in Scripture, in the same way, that despite a vibrant theology of God as creator, the notion of modern cosmology is absent form scripture. Human rights are not about, nor do they require, revelation. Human rights are based on a growing evolution about what is intrinsic to human being. Rather than searching the scripture and tradition in order to discover and explain what rights gay and lesbian people may have, we might more profitably attempt to explain how new practices with regard to blessings and ordinations, build common ground with a growing positive social consensus about the human person. It would help, if we would actually, not only talk to, but also learn from, people in the human and social sciences. –Rod Gillis

Rod @12:49PM above: Thank you for your comment. It helps me be more appreciative of what Bishop Whalon has said.

As to your last paragraph it is perhaps a both/and. You are right. At the same time the words "created equal and endowed by their with certain unalienable rights" and their contradiction with our society have been a driver of the expansion of those rights to women, and blacks. Not without flaws and shortcomings, but there has been progress. May those words continue to drive us.

Rod Gillis notes that Bishop Whalen said:

Now we had to deal with the reality of what we doing, and defend it. Not by some appeal to psychology or endocrinology or genetics, or other contested, ephemeral, and finally dehumanizing “scientific answers,” but some honest-to-God theology, a reasoned argument based firmly on Scripture and the other, lesser resources of the Tradition.

Murdoch Matthew

I appreciate Murdoch Matthew's post.I trust he and others know my comment on Pierre Whalon is intended as a critical rejoinder to the same.-Rod Gillis

Right, Rod. I mentioned you only to credit the one who highlighted Pierre Whalon's incredible statement -- that positions based on fact, evidence, experience, are ephemeral and dehumanizing, and endless wrangling over interpretation of texts and narratives offers a firm foundation.

Again, which is "contested"? Theology is always contested, having no way but "reason" to settle disputes. But opinions differ, eternally; authority and tradition offer no final answers. Science is contested in the sense that evidence is pursued until general agreement (a theory) is reached. There are things that can be verified and agreed upon.

Then it's left to theologians to continue to dispute findings that don't fit their narratives.

Murdoch Matthew

Thank you for highlighting Bishop Whalon's essay. I wanted to post a comment here, but my comments were much too verbose.

I wrote on my blog about his essay and why I agree that he is asking the right question. I agree that our church needs to express an "official" position about why we believe it is right and fitting to bless same-sex unions and to ordain people living in those unions.

Please observe that one of the members of the House of Bishops formerly-secret theology panel has broken the silence. Grant LeMarquand took time to talk with his "friends" at StandFirm to reveal the schedule and dynamics of the panel's work. I blogged about it here. I don't mean to be blog-whoring. But I haven't seen anywhere else that has highlighted LeMarquand's comments.

I'm sorry to post yet again ... but please let me post this one more item.

I wonder why Bishop Whalon chose to blog this week. I pondered that question here.

Remember: The formerly-secret panel was supposed to issue its papers in 2011. But now we know they are going to deliver their paper(s) to the March 2010 meeting of the House of Bishops. I am hopeful that this is a positive development.

Perhaps I'm a radical optimist. But I wonder whether Bishop Whalon's essay may be alerting us to good news coming soon from the House of Bishops.

Jim et al, please feel free to delete these notes if they violate your posting principles.

The problem today, as Jim Naughton has documented, is that theology is being used as a deed to property -- the church and its goods belong to true believers, and those who would change the formula must be excluded. A handful of billionaires of inherited wealth plan and fund the attacks; church officials' defense so far has been to claim an orthodoxy equal to the attackers', and to hold tightly to the actual deeds of property. Meanwhile the attackers' purpose is achieved -- to neutralize and demean a possible critic and obstacle to their pursuit of political power.

So the church is stuck at a moment when people are moving into different paradigms of thought. The old product seems irrelevant, and seeking a new grounding brings on the depredations of well-funded lawyers and ecclesiastical bandits.

For what it's worth, I found two comments on the Internet that illuminate our situation. Charlotte on "Thinking Anglicans" points out the kind of theology actually being demanded of us:

British Evangelicals have a very particular way of making an argument, and if the argument doesn't come to them in their preferred form, they will reject it altogether. If we want to try to reach them, we might imitate their preferred method. It very closely resembles the exegesis done by theoretical Marxists and the followers of other Continental philosophers. . . . It consists of mining the sacred and authoritative writing until it is made to yield a synthesis of texts authorizing one's own preferred position, which is then projected back onto the authoritative writing. It is more than proof-texting, and the textual synthesis can be quite artful.

When thinkers rejected a pure world above and argued for the unity of scientific laws (as Newton did), reason began to break out from the hold of theology. The universe became not finite and limited but infinite and uniform. Grades of perfection were of no interest.

The chain of reasoning backwards no longer works. . . . Relativity and quantum science shows that causal chains end up in what is unalike -- so there are no pure forms; it is also meaningless to ask about what came before the beginning of time. In other words, causality is self-producing and we are always within where we are.

In other words, we do not have Truth with a capital T, but truths relative to themselves. This really is, or should be, the death of Thomism and indeed the Avicennism of Ibn Sina. The irrational is behind the rational, and we have to analyse only from the first relevant phenomenon in any chain of reasoning. And in chaos theory, we cannot know the outcome of so many events simply because tiny differences iterate into hugely different outcomes.

My own argument is this: Christianity is a linear time system and divine cause, intervention, and outcome is the very stuff of Christianity. After all, Christ as 'God the Son' is intervention into history. Yet the whole basis for this, in Pure Forms, and in causal chains, is dead and gone, and reasoning is something that has to be relative and phenomena based.

As for Unitarianism, I have long argued for relativity, for questioning realism, and for seeing religion as more like art. Religion, I think, is about something more personal, deep, reflective and contemplative. It is not about doctrines that rely on proofs. The proofs are not there. Reason did break away from Aquinas's absorption, but reasoning went on even to dig the grave of its own founder Aristotle, as well as those like Aquinas and Ib Sina who used him.

That last "garydasein" was, of course, posted by me, Murdoch Matthew.