With respect, I take exception to the implication that in my essays I have painted anyone with a broad brush. To the contrary, I have referred readers to original sources so that folks like the "Communion Partners" can be read in the language that they choose. I simply and adamantly then encourage people to hold them accountable for what they say. I expect this from my fellow Christians, as I expect people to hold me accountable as well for my words and actions. But in every case, the holding to account must be honest and accurate. To say that I have painted with a broad brush that I think is unworthy of those of us on any side of any issue who are troubling ourselves to do the hard work of being specific.
The fact that I am willing to engage the doggedness of those who claim to be loyal to this Church while in print and in action they contradict that very claim may make people some discomfort. But ultimately, light is an agent of healing. It may be comforting to hold to the belief that we are really all the same or are largely all in agreement around 'what matters most;' but I think we need to face the truth. We are not all the same. And while can all agree on a majority of questions, e.g. yes, the sky is blue and yes, Jesus is Lord; yet there are important questions upon which people do not agree, and these are worthy of debate and even division.
In times past, the majority of the Church all agreed on most things and on the things that matter most. But there was disagreement about the Gentiles being legitimately included in the People of God. There was disagreement around whether or not Rome or Byzantium was the center of the institutional Church. There was disagreement around whether or not the Church in England should accede to the dictates of Rome. There was disagreement around whether or not slavery is acceptable in a Christian fellowship (I know people like to claim that the Episcopal Church didn't split during the Civil War, but they need to acknowledge that the Southern States did not attend General Convention at that time, and held a separate Convention of their own, so let's just be honest). There was disagreement around whether or not the Church would give God permission to call to Holy Orders Christians who are women. Now there is disagreement around whether or not the Church can claim to be spiritually healthy and honest to the Gospel while maintaining an official policy and practice of discrimination against people whose sexual identity is a majority one.
These are real disagreements about real matters of real consequence. It's important that we recognize that bidding people to set aside their disagreements, which is what I hear behind the complaint of 'painting with a broad brush', is a request that can only be made by those of us who already have a full place at the table. I'm my opinion, it's unfair. And as a priest, simply as a Christian, I am not able to deny the fact that bigotry is unhealthy for anyone's soul, whether the subject or the object thereof. For the Church, of all institutions, of all communities, to perpetuate what I can only term a self-serving delusion that it is somehow better for the comfortable majority to avoid the pain of disagreement than to respond to our vocation in Christ to name, challenge, and help to end the spiritual pain of souls bound to bigotry and ignorance. To pretend in the name of 'all' of us getting along that a position or polity that calls for perpetuating bigotry is a valid one, or that those who promote it should be immune from having their views and their methods challenged, is simply, in my opinion, indefensible.
We don't all get along. We really are different from one another. Our differences are important, they are valuable. It is by addressing our differences that humanity moves forward, not by enforcing or urging some specious unanimity. The Church is moving forward because the majority of us wants to embrace and celebrate our differences. Those who do not or cannot will be best served not by pretending that this is not the case; but by discerning whether or not they can move in a direction that accepts and embraces difference and 'other-ness' and ceases trying to tear down or pull back the Church to a position where they would be content again. If they are not able to do so, they will continue to be discontent and to feel unwelcome. But they will feel this way not because the majority doesn't want them, but because their views, values, and methods are no longer respected by the majority. Our differences matter, and so our disagreements are very important.
I agree that painting with a broad brush is an intellectually dishonest and thus destructive approach to disagreement. This is why I don't do it. Instead, I go to primary sources and put them forward for others to help make sure that people are aware of the facts behind the rhetoric. The facts is the Rev. Phil Turner, our revered retired Dean of the Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest, has written in articles posted on his own "Anglican Communion Institute" web site, that the only way he sees 'forward' is schism; articles that declare, as of August 2006, that the Episcopal Church has in fact chosen 'to walk apart' from the Anglican Communion, and which call for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates to "take consequent actions, however difficult, which will enable those who wish to remain loyal to Windsor, and hence to the Communion, to be recognised (sic) as full constituent members". People may want to deny that Dr. Turner has encouraged schism, but I urge them simply to let the entirety of the man's writings speak for him.
The same with the respected Rector of St. Martin's, Houston. The Rev. Russ Levenson may pay some lip service to the virtue of 'remaining in' the Episcopal Church, but when his rhetoric includes identifying the Church as Babylon, it is nothing short of foolish for us not to inquire behind his rhetoric. In his tome, St. Martin's, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, the Rev. Levenson writes to his parish that "at least for this chapter in our history, it is important to stay connected to the both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion - but I am confident that neither will be without their (sic) own great challenges - and thus, our primary and perhaps greatest desire should be that we live out the orthodox Christian faith - in whatever arena or under whatever umbrella we operate." "At least for this chapter"? "Stay connected"? "Orthodox"? "Whatever umbrella or arena"? Who gets to define these? He continues, "I would strongly suspect if the Episcopal Church in the United States were as a whole to simply 'abandon' (his quotes) any allegiance of the orthodox Christian faith, then we would, as a Parish, need to begin a discernment about how we would continue to relate to our diocese, the national Church and perhaps, even the greater Communion." Again, in order for the rest of us to exercise due diligence toward the "Communion Partners" that Russell is now promoting, we must be willing to hold him along with the ACI, accountable to what they've written, said, and done previously. We must be willing and able to challenge the use of particularized language such as 'orthodox Christian faith' especially when it is used in conjunction with claims and implications that the Episcopal Church is abandoning same. I find such use of language and such implication to be highly disagreeable, and I fail to see why I or anyone should apologize simply for disagreeing.
Some have suggested that I should show greater respect for people like the retired Dean or my fellow clergy; to which I reply that in my world view respect is earned, not assumed. In addition, it's interesting to me that these same folks who claim to be aghast at my audacity show not the slightest hesitance in leveling their own criticisms at our Presiding Bishop, their fellow bishops and clergy, and at seminary deans and professors with whose theology they disagree. I have never attempted to deny anyone's right to express their opinion or views. I will, however, always deny anyone the supposed right to claim immunity from having those views or opinions credibly challenged.
I would suggest that if it is true that most of us are overly busy in our own parish lives, doing what we believe to be our mission, that we need remember that the mission to which we are called is the Church's, not just ours. If our understanding of our mission is at serious odds with the Church's understanding of its mission, then we need to know this so that we can, as the Rev. Levenson puts it, 'begin a discernment.' But I would add that the claim that one can remain 'in' the Church but not 'of' the Church is a bogus one. If one's loyalties to oneself and to God conflict with loyalty to the Church, then choose God and oneself. There are many communities of the Church, many branches to the tree of Christian faith, other than this one, where they need suffer no longer the painters with broad brushes, nor the conflict, nor the disagreement.
I hope I've persuaded my critics that I do not paint with a broad brush, but am specific and clear as I can possibly be. And, pray, let's not be afraid of difference and disagreement. Let's not allow ourselves to pretend that the differences don't matter at least as much as the commonalities.
Jim +
No comments:
Post a Comment