Now I’m confused by something else: why, if an alleged breach of church discipline is so very bad, are those to whom it gives offense unwilling to say, “We can no longer remain in communion with those transgressors; we renounce communion with them”? In the present dust-up, it seems as though people want very much to be able to say, “We aren’t renouncing them — they’re renouncing us.”
I’ve been scolded on several points about the consecration of Bishop Robinson, and I’ve been scolded again for not responding to these scoldings, so I’ll put off working on my sermon and SBL presentation to answer as best I can.
First, to address the easiest point. Craig says, “ The heretic is always willing to remain in communion with the orthodox, and 99% of the time an observer unfamiliar with both sides can identify which is which by that fact alone.” Unfortunately, church history doesn’t back Craig up. The church catholic has pretty consistently erred on the side of embracing even erring brethren. The Novationists wanted to uphold higher standards of membership than did Cyprian; the Donatists wanted to link the efficacy of God’s action to the worthiness of the minister. In both these (significant, long-lasting) conflicts, it was the schismatics who rejected a church that would otherwise include them. Craig or others will certainly cite counter-examples, but nowhere near the 99% proportion that Craig proposes.
Jeff (who preached a wonderfully challenging, humble, and truthful sermon on Monday but has fallen mute, blogwise) asks whether the US church indicated that it might be unwilling to share communion with others when it pursued a course of action contrary to the 1998 Lambeth resolution that urged a moratorium on sacramental actions such as blessing the relationships of same-sex couples or, presumably, the consecration of a non-celibate homosexual to the episcopate? I don’ think so, inasmuch as I understand the US Episcopal Church to be saying, “We will not try to impose upon you our understanding of qualifications for ordination or or marital practices, and we will not be compelled to observe your standards in these matters.” That doesn’t require impaired communion, though if dissenting provinces or dioceses want to declare their unwillingness to share communion with the US Church, I would understand their reasoning.
He further connects the US action with integrity and accountability, two theological premises that I honor highly. I agree that the US Church should be accountable to others, and that no one should be surprised that other branches of the Anglican Communion have opposed the consecration of Bishop Robinson. If they were to declare us out of communion with one another, again, I would understand; what I don’t understand is why they’re unwilling so to do (I think I read somewhere that Peter Akinola has said as much, but I’m not sure it’s on the record).
On the other hand, what about the integrity and accountability of Episcopalians who believe that God has called Gene Robinson to be Bishop of New Hampshire, a belief shared by the people of the Diocese of New Hampshire themselves (and to which the vast preponderance of US bishops assented)? Both sides can’t claim to be the “weaker brother.” The integrity of non-US Episcopalians doesn’t trump the integrity of US Episcopalians. We find ourselves with conflicting senses of how our consciences bind us; at such a time, with we ought all the more to renew our communion, that together we may work toward a fuller understanding of where the Spirit is leading us.
The US Church should absolutely be willing to face the consequences of its actions. Dissenting churches should likewise take responsibility for their actions. If the US is out of communion with other provinces, it’s up to those provinces to name the condition and claim their role of leadership in recalling the US Church to repaired communion.
I have been addressing this kind of question for a while, Susan (from my comments), but I’m going back over what I say in person and online, just to be clear.
Cliff Healy compares my claims to the notion that a persistently adulterous husband may claim to be faithful to his spouse, but we all know that he just plain isn’t; so too, the Episcopal Church claims to be in communion with the rest of the world, but it just plain isn’t, on the basis of its adulterous behavior. I suppose that if I agreed that support for homosexual clergy constituted theological adultery, I’d be obliged to follow where Cliff leads. But I don’t, and that’s where more of these arguments fall into a discursive abyss: we’e disagreeing about one of the terms of the argument, but people are fussing about the conclusions.
Christopher (again, in the same comments) castigates my poor ecclesiology, suggests that I don’t know what the controversy is really all about, and suggests that heresy has engulfed the whole Episcopal Church. That’s not a very promising beginning for a conversation, but I’ll do my best to respond to his thoughts, recorded here.
Christopher submits that Robinson’s teaching that homosexual activity is not intrinsically sinful constitutes heresy; presumably, then, the problem isn’t with Robinson but with every bishop who teaches that homosexual behavior isn’t intrinsically sinful — including the Archbishop of Canterbury. If that’s the company of the heretics, I am not displeased at my company. Not all of it, anyway; there are some in there with whom I remain extremely uncomfortable. But Christopher’s point does clear some ground, since it suggests that if you’re not willing to accuse every pro-gay bishop of heresy, the Robinson consecration ought not cause new disruption of the church’s status.
Christopher then suggests that in consecrating Robinson, the Episcopal Church is implicitly renouncing the Apostolic Deposit of Faith — though since we’ve consecrated pro-gay bishops before, I8’m not sure what makes Robinson more of a “false teacher” than other bishops. But more to this particular point, Christopher maintains (entirely intelligibly, though not indisputably) that advocacy of the full engagement of homosexual persons in Church life constitutes an ipso facto rejection of apostolicity. I don’t; the Archbishop of Canterbury didn’t when he wrote about the topic extensively as a theologian and as Archbishop of Wales; and I’m ready to marked this down as a disputed question. Christopher not only isn’ willing so to do, but simply already knows that I’m wrong.
Maybe that’s my summary perspective on the problem. I’m willing to respect Jeff’s, Christopher’s, Susan’s, Clifton’s, and Peter Akinola’s consciences and deliberations; they have a genuine, strong, coherent, respectable theological stance (I’m assuming as much for the people I don’t know as well — it seems only fair). As such, I do indeed hope to remain in communion with them, such as I’m already in communion with. I’ll regret being anathematized by people I respect, but I’m ready to be judged for my theology.
I’m up past my bedtime, I’ve neglected pastoral, academic, and familial responsibilities, and I doubt I have any argument left in me. Goodnight, all, and God bless.
Posted by AKMA at November 13, 2003 10:30 PM | TrackBackI've not commented on here before because I don't really feel qualified. However, I want to respond to this post. AKMA, I really must thank you for writing this much. You make good arguments and they are ones I can understand, follow, and with which I can agree. But others, namely Jeff, make equally good arguments with which I can argree. The pain I feel during this time of controversy in the church is very real. I don't know what to think. I watch men and women I respect greatly argue with harsh words over this subject and find myself listening to each in turn and saying, "I agree" to both of them. It seems, though, that being unsure is not an acceptable place to be, especially at Seabury. So, when I am forced to pick a side, as I feel I often am at Seabury, I revert to my roots, what I know best, what I have grown up believing. That side, the conservative stance if you will, makes me into a criminal at this seminary. I don't know what I really believe and I suspect it will be a while, after much prayer and study, that I come to a final conclusion. This time of uncertainty, combined with the supression of my own thoughts so as to offend the least number of people possible in order to remain friends with them is driving me batty. It's late now and I fear if I write more it will just be incoherent. Thanks for listening.
-R
Posted by: Ryan Whitley at November 13, 2003 11:20 PMI appreciate your willingness to respond thoughtfully to my remarks, especially given that you didn't find my initial comment "promising".
I should clarify some points. First of all, though I was a "cradle" Episcopalian I haven't been an Episcopalian for the last 20 years or so. If I'm butting in to other people's business, I apologize. (For the record, I was Eastern Orthodox for 10 years and am now an LCMS Lutheran. My ecclesiological perspective is basically Orthodox.)
You are right that Robinson is by no means the only bishop who is, by my lights, a false teacher. You can start with James Pike and move on to David Jenkins, William Swing, Spong, and on and on. The fact that Episcopal conservatives were willing to tolerate all those other heterodox bishops, but now are willing to go to the mattresses because Gene Robinson is homosexual does give rise to the suspicion that their zeal for orthodoxy might be mixed with a little homophobia. That might be unfair, but it doesn't look good.
When I say that, by consecrating Robinson, the Episcopal Church has departed from the Apostolic faith, it is not because I think Robinson worse than any other heterodox bishop. In fact, it's not the act of consecration itself that is the departure from the faith; the consecration manifests a departure that has already taken place. Robinson himself said that his teaching might be contrary to Scripture and Tradition, but that that by itself didn't make it wrong (I'm paraphrasing; I don't have the exact quote handy). To me, this statement was a deliberate rejection of the authority of the Church in a most fundamental way - not a rejection so much of any particular orthodox doctrine, but of the entire idea of orthodoxy. He was rejecting any claim of orthodoxy over his intellect or conscience. To ordain a man to be a guardian of the faith who will not place himself under its authority vitiates the Church's claim to any kind of orthodoxy.
Finally, it is a misstatement of my views to say that I reject the full engagement of homosexual persons in Church life. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a resort for saints. All of us sinners are welcome in the Church. Gene Robinson is not the first Christian whose sexual life doesn't conform 100% to the Church's teachings, nor the last. How he deals with the sin in his life (sexual or otherwise) is none of my business - it's between him, his father confessor, and God. But when he wants to be a bishop of the Apostolic and Catholic Church, his teachings are my business, and the business of every baptized Christian - for we all are responsible before God for guarding the deposit, for handing on the Tradition that we have received, whole and undefiled. When a Church ordains a man as bishop who explicitly rejects that Tradition, it is (in my opinion) an act of apostasy.
Posted by: Christopher Jones at November 13, 2003 11:44 PMMany who oppose this choice of the US Episcopal church reject it viscerally, and also find intellectual grounds to object to it — in terms as strong as "heresy."
Personally, while I can understand intellectually why Gene Robinson's consecration as bishop distresses many in our church, I just can't understand it emotionally. This is a probably failure of empathetic imagination on my part.
But which comes first, do you think, the emotional response or the intellectual analysis leading to a reasoned position?
How many people, do you suppose, are there who think: Gee, I really really wish I could support Gene Robinson, I think that would be swell, but my calm and considered review of the situation in light of scripture and tradition just makes it impossible for me to follow my heart.
Or conversely: Much as homosexuality disgusts and appalls me, my considered review of scripture and tradition requires that I accept this duly ordained leader in the Episcopal Church, and I hereby submit myself to its canons and discipline.
I suspect the two positions are equally rare.
Posted by: Pascale Soleil at November 14, 2003 12:09 AMPascale,
My own position is pretty close to your first case. I really wish I could be a liberal on homosexuality; but I will not set aside Scripture in Tradition to do so. It is my duty to be taught by the Tradition, not to judge it or submit it to my preference.
Posted by: Christopher Jones at November 14, 2003 12:27 AMDear AKMA,
THANK YOU for being such a clear, compassionate leader and enabler of discourse, specifically within such raw concerns over Bishop Gene Robinson. While I'm amazed and deeply saddened at the perceived controversies (against his TEACHINGS!? --to my knowledge, Robinson is the perfect model of a Christian teacher, leader, human being...), I am very pleased that at least some of the arguments/ fears/ struggles are being laid bare with the help of your honesty and wisdom.
Thanks.
Jeanne
(no theologian, but I do read and care)
Why would it be a surprise that Robinson says his consecration goes against tradition? Tradition kept women from ordained leadership, and this church decided to go against that aspect of its tradition some years ago.
If Robinson really thinks that his consecration goes against scripture, then I agree that's troubling. But I wonder whether this is an accurate quote, or an accurate understanding of his meaning. Could he have meant that he understands scripture to not speak directly against committed same-sex relationships, because they were not part of the world of which the scriptural authors wrote? That's a point about which people can disagree without abandoning the concept of orthodoxy even if one side claims the other has departed from orthodoxy in fact.
What I think that few "liberal" Episcopalians understand about the reaction we "conservative" folks have had is that it isn't just Robinson, but a response built on 30 years of seeing our beliefs and what we hold dear marginalized in the church.
It's not just one thing. It's years of having my bishop tell me in pastoral letters that my political views (generally Republican) were bad. It's Pike, Spong and Browning. It's discomfort with portions of the 79 Prayer Book. It's feeling like the issue of women in the priesthood was foisted on some people.
Through all this, most of us gave our tithe, attended our diocesan conventions, and read Episcopal Life, all the while, trying to beat down the growing sense that the Episcopal Church really wasn't interested in us, or what we understood to be the faith.
For me, and for many others, Robinsons' election, approval and consecration was the tipping point. I can't fight off that sense of being orphaned by my own church anymore.
I don't know where that leaves me, except way too alienated to continue being a "good" episcopalian.
Posted by: Peter Frank at November 14, 2003 02:21 PMThanks, everyone, for a rich and polite conversation. I think I’m mostly caught up in the next posting, but I wanted to say thanks to Peter Frank for a clear connection (that I’ve sometimes missed from others) between Robinson and the last many years. For what it’s worth — and I say this not to woo you back to a home you feel rejected from — I’m flummoxed by Pike, insulted by Spong, unimpressed by Browning, well-satisfied with the 79 Book, and entirely comfortable with women in the clergy.
But I don’t understand why it’s vital to coerce particular bishops, dioceses and clergy to toe a given line, when those who puch beyond the llines that others have drawn receive acclaim as prophets and pioneers. I may not disagree with you, Peter, but I’d be saddened if we had to address our disagreements by one casting the other away.
Posted by: AKMA at November 14, 2003 05:11 PMChristopher Jones expresses my viewpoint quite well: this is repudiation of the entire concept of orthodoxy as received wisdom. That's more than a slippery slope; it's a bottomless chasm.
As for the necessity of coercing bishops to toe a particular line, it does appear to be the modus operandi of GC with respect to women's ordination.
As for the willingness of heretics to remain in communion with orthodox, of course my 99% figure was pulled out of thin air. I still maintain the majority goes that way; while there are examples of creeping rigorism in established doctrine, more often heresy springs from supposed new revelation or wisdom that conveniently obviates the strictures of established doctrine.
Posted by: craig at November 17, 2003 11:08 AMIf unity is important, then the orthodox refusal to remain in communion is always heretical. This is, of course, a trick of logic and "it's more complicated than that" but unity is not a single edged sword.
Posted by: Trevor at November 18, 2003 01:33 PMIf unity is the most important thing, trumping all else, then no-one can be turned out, and heresy and orthodoxy have no meaning anymore -- all doctrines are (in theory) equally acceptable. In that case, the organization ceases to believe anything as a whole.
In practice, it does not work this way; exclusive claims to truth are intolerable within this sphere, because they reject the organization's a priori principle that unity is the most important thing.
Posted by: craig at November 21, 2003 11:45 AM