One thing I tried to follow while on vacation was news from the Anglican Primates meeting in Tanzania. In a world at war, with the Darfur crisis spilling into Chad, the glaciers melting at a faster rate than previously imagined, tensions ratcheting up with Iran, a depressing and ongoing stalement over the Palestine question — with all of that on the table, the leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion spent most of their meeting in Africa (a continent with a host of pressing human and environmental problems) focused on how best to rebuke the Episcopal Church USA for its consecration of an openly gay bishop and its support for same-sex unions. Priorities are clearly straight (pun intended) in my global church.
Here’s the BBC story. And read more coverage at Kendall’s.
This is not to say that sexual morality isn’t an important topic, and one that the church ought to discuss. But it ought to make all of us in the Anglican church sad, regardless of where we find ourselves on the issue of sexuality, that yet another argument over “pelvic morality” is distracting us from so many other vital concerns. We must ask ourselves the question: in spending so much time and energy discerning God’s will on the question of homosexuality, what other vital issues are we ignoring? How many lambs are going unfed because we’re too busy trying to disqualify some of the very shepherds who want to feed them?
I’m convinced that for most straight people, the issue of same-sex marriage is an attractive one over which to argue and debate. It’s why we like to argue about it so much in the church. Most other issues call us to personal repentance and transformation. Christ calls us to think differently about how we eat, about how we spend our money, about how we interact with our neighbors, about how we live so many aspects of our lives. But if we’re straight, taking a position on homosexuality (whether or not it’s an affirming one) is ultimately pretty damned cheap.
No straight person gives up anything when he or she comes out for or against same-sex marriage. So we progressive heterosexuals get to feel virtuous and brave for standing in solidarity with our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters; conservative straights get to feel as if they are “defending the Gospel” by trying to bar the ordination of gay clergy and the blessing of non-heterosexual unions. And whatever side we’re on, it doesn’t cost us much. The focus is off our own flaws, away from the logs in our own eyes. And so both right and left collude to make homosexuality the defining issue in the modern church.
But of course, for our GLBTQ friends and neighbors, this debate isn’t cheap. It goes to the very heart of their identity. And it is for the love of these friends and neighbors, my brothers and sisters in Christ, that I am willing to see a schism in the church I love. Unity is a good, but it isn’t anywhere near the highest good. To progressives, justice is a higher good than unity. To conservatives, fidelity to tradition and Scripture is a higher good than unity. If both sides can at least agree on that, then perhaps we can gently break apart the wider Anglican communion.
As my rabbi friend often says, “Sometimes divorce is a mitzvah.” I’ve often written that there are redemptive aspects to the end of a marriage, particularly when both parties become stronger and better people as a result. I believe that just as there can be both amicable and hostile divorces, there can also be amicable and hostile church schisms. While there’s still a chance to separate gently, with a mixture of regret, sadness, respect and relief, we should take that chance.
Our shepherd has told us he leads sheep from many folds; let’s let those who cannot be in our fold any longer follow our same shepherd on a different path.
Pingback: Gospel Planet » Same shepherd, different paths: a note on the current state of the Anglican Communion
Well said, Hugo. I’ve been watching this as an outsider, and it seems to me that this is an intractable split that will affect all Protestant denominations. Some have such majorities for conservatism that they will essentially expel any pro-GLBT members; a few are at their core GLBT-friendly, and those mainline denominations with substantial numbers on both sides will split over it: Anglicans first, probably Methodists next.
The alternative to schism is that people who feel strongly pro-GLBT will get too angry at the compromises with intolerance, and will simply walk away from organized churches one at a time, ceding organized Christianity to the conservatives without any comparable voice for religious progressives. In that sense, refusing to split is letting them win.
There is nothing more important than fidelity to the gospel. Ameliorating poverty comes from love for God. Love for God comes from who He is, and what He has done for us. Liberals in the Anglican Communion have a fundamentally different view of what that is, and the Presiding Bishop gives evidence of that every time she speaks.
Hugo, if you and your progressive brethren wish to depart from the pattern of Christian truth we have received, the witness of Scripture and the testimony of the Church catholic, you are free to do so. But don’t pretend we’re the ones leaving the fold. Conservatives are where they were before. We haven’t moved. It is ECUSA who is entertaining strange doctrines, and thank God, the Primates recognise the fact.
“And whatever side we’re on, it doesn’t cost us much. The focus is off our own flaws, away from the logs in our own eyes. And so both right and left collude to make homosexuality the defining issue in the modern church.”
But you make it sound here as if those who are straight are the ones making this the front-and-center issue. The greater Anglican community did not decide to make this “the issue” until it was forced upon them. If they feel (rightly) that the episcopalians are rapidly leaving their historical moorings in the name of “justice,” and in so doing actually condoning “sin” and allowing “unrepentant sinners” into places of leadership, they have no choice but to respond. They aren’t colluding with anybody to make this the issue. The issue has been pressed upon them and they cannot look the other way.
I’m trying hard not to sound pejorative here one way or the other, but it seems you are taking an unfair swipe at those who are attempting to faithfully live according to scripture.
I’d also take you to task on your bifurcation of “justice” and “fidelity to scripture and tradition,” as if the conservative wing have left justice behind in the name of fidelity to scripture. Most conservatives are seeking after true justice as much as their more liberal brethren, but would say it is an injustice to allow people walking down a road of destruction to remain on that road, and an even graver injustice to give said people a pat on the back as they wander away from all God has intended for them.
And by the same token, Dan, most of us who find ourselves on the theological left take the Gospel very seriously. And we know that the Holy Spirit still speaks, and that the Gospel is not the final word, as John tells us:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2016:12-14;&version=31;
John: By chance, are you a Protestant? I mean, it’s implied, but I want to be sure.
Yep. Hence the small “c” in catholic. Any particular reason you asked? (Not that I mind
)
There is nothing more important than fidelity to the gospel. Ameliorating poverty comes from love for God. Love for God comes from who He is, and what He has done for us. Liberals in the ‘Protestant Reformation’ have a fundamentally different view of what that is, and Martin Luther gives evidence of that every time he speaks.
Hugo, if you and your progressive brethren wish to depart from the pattern of Christian truth we have received, the witness of Scripture and the testimony of the Church catholic, you are free to do so. But don’t pretend we’re the ones leaving the fold. Conservatives are where they were before. We haven’t moved. It is the ‘Lutherans’ who are entertaining strange doctrines, and thank God, the Pope recognizes the fact.
Very neat. Also very wrong, but nicely done all the same. The witness of Scripture was on the Lutheran side, not to mention that Reformation Protestants, unlike the liberals today, did NOT have a different view of who God is, who Jesus is and what He did. That bit, Roman Catholics and evangelicals agreed about, and they still do. Protestantism is within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Liberalism isn’t.
*shrug* ‘We’re right because we’ve always done it this way and it worked for us,’ isn’t a particularly strong argument.
Protestants, unlike the liberals today, did NOT have a different view of who God is, who Jesus is and what He did.
I’m quite unclear as to what you mean by this. Hugo and other theological progressives would fight you tooth and nail it, I suspect. The line about ‘who Jesus is and what He did’ in particular; the Gospels themselves are notable for being quite devoid of references to homosexuality.
And as with any divorce, at least one side feels it is very important to state for the record that they are blameless and the other side is at fault.
Not as with any divorce, Thomas — if we move forward in schism, we can all have much time for reflection and repentance. There’s been a lot of intemperate language on all sides for which regret ought to be expressed.
“the Gospels themselves are notable for being quite devoid of references to homosexuality”
This is, of course, an argument from silence. Where sexuality is mentioned in the gospels, it supports the greater biblical strain of man+woman in lifelong committed relationships. Jesus, when speaking of marriage, went right back to the Creation story for his model of “how it should be.” You could make the case that you can’t oppose homosexuality based on the Gospels alone, but you can’t make the case that the Gospels support the validity of same-sex sexual relationships.
I do agree with this line: “There’s been a lot of intemperate language on all sides for which regret ought to be expressed.” The debate has too often taken a personal tone which drags us all down, and drags Christ’s name through the mud. I appreciate your desire to see peace in the camps, even if it means seperation, even if I disagree with your hermeneutic.
It would be awesome if this “divorce” yielded communication and understanding. What it will likely yield is wealthier lawyers when the two parties fight over property.
Not being a Christian, I won’t speak directly to this point. But perhaps I can quote a very powerful blog post on a similar topic (not Episcopalian per se, but homosexuality & Christians & the Bible), from Fred Clark:
“The Bible prohibits the charging of interest. No getting around it. This is explicit and unambiguous and more frequently discussed in scripture than is homosexuality. Jesus himself didn’t just repeat this prohibition, he amplified it by forbidding the expectation of repayment. So no wiggle room there.
The charging of interest is, of course, the basis of our market economy. It is as unavoidable now as the air we breathe. I have several interest-bearing accounts (as well as, unfortunately, several interest-charging accounts). So does my local church. So does my denomination. So do even the least “worldly” of our coreligionists, the Amish. And so do, I’m guessing, my evangelical detractors who feel my advocacy of homosexual rights is “unbiblical.”
How on earth do we justify this? More to the point, why is it that we don’t even feel the need to bother to justify this?
[SNIP]
This reasonable step is regarded as noncontroversial when the matter involved is our own money. When the matter involved is someone else’s sexuality, however, such a reasonable step is regarded as extremely controversial. Why do you suppose that is?”
1) And so both right and left collude to make homosexuality the defining issue in the modern church.
I can’t disagree, and yet 20 years ago, these same conversations and heated rifts were being caused by abortion. In fact, the Presbyterians, having only recently healed their North-South divisions (and joined to form the United Presbyterian Church) fairly quickly split along a left-right axis (spawning the conservative Presbyterian Church of America) because of precisely that issue. Of course, the two issues are joined by the link to sexuality, to deep-seated norms, and other things, but I just wanted to make the point that the frontier of defining issues probably shifts with the frontier of social issues facing the larger population…
2) Also, in response to the person who suggested that Methodists may be next to face a crisis, I think, sadly, that Presbyterians are also on the verge of such a schism, although they’ve staved it off once under the umbrella of “further discussion”…
3) I thought readers here might be as interested as I was to hear how our Jewish bretheren have handled this same issue, which is to pass high-level resolutions both in favor of *and against* ordination of gay rabbis — to quote my own post on the topic:
This sort of solution follows more naturally from the Jewish tradition of maintaining varied views of the laws and scriptures — Christianity has always desire to find One Right Answer — but I find it a heartening example of how people of good intent can come to accept the insolubility of difficult issues without losing their ability to come together…
Thanks for the discussion.
Pingback: pills soma